Is this what progress feels like?

We got through an entire city council meeting with no controversy.  This fact has me questioning just what universe I'm living in at the moment.

No, seriously!  There were no Open Meetings Act violations, there was no need to define elementary school-level words used in the city charter, there were no arguments over what difference a changed date made... this isn't the Hillsdale I know!

Oh, I'm sure I picked up on a few passive-aggressive verbal barbs here and there.  Nothing out of line, but just some interesting phrasing that could have been taken as references to some recent events.  I won't say who directed what at whom, but if you've been paying attention, you can probably guess with some accuracy.

And yes, I snickered once or twice over them.

Now don't get me wrong: I don't credit Doug Terry's departure for this.  At least not entirely.  Lew Loren has been just as much a cause of trouble in the recent scandals that have plagued Hillsdale's city government, and I get the feeling that his retirement, while not necessarily triggered by the public attention, was certainly accelerated by it.

His demeanor at Monday night's meeting was one of... I can only call it indifference.  It was up to Council.  You could do it either way.  Doesn't make any difference to his life.  He was completely relaxed in his chair with a palpable air of nonchalance about him.  He has nothing to lose, so why should he pretend otherwise?

But I think we all know what everyone really wants to hear about: new City Manager David Mackie's first night on the job.

My first impression was simply this: he's off to a good, positive start.  Granted, he had relatively little background on any given issue coming into the meeting, so there wasn't much for him to really speak up about, but he was paying attention, taking it all in, watching it all unfold in front of him.

Or, in this case, to the sides of him.  If you're unfamiliar with the council chambers' layout, the room is divided roughly in half by a banister.  On one side, at the front of the room, you have the U-shaped council table.  On the other side, you have the gallery, including the desk for the media to the left of the podium and the desk for the city clerk and attorney to the right.

Doug Terry used to sit at that right-side desk.  David Mackie sat at the council table.

It appeared to be a show of goodwill.  It felt like he was part of the team, not sitting opposite the team.  There didn't seem to be any presumption in it.  On the contrary, it came across that he wanted to work with the council, not just for the council.  We'll see if the seating arrangement remains that way when we once again have all nine council seats occupied, but I don't see why he shouldn't be right there with them at that point, too.

One other thing that (really shouldn't have) impressed me was that, when the time came for the city manager's report toward the end of the evening, there were no grand, illustrious flourishes of language.  Mackie simply, respectfully addressed his concerns to the council -- in this case, about the BPU situation -- and gave his suggestions for how to move forward.

He was assertive, but not forceful.  I didn't get the sense that he was going to blow his top if someone disagreed with him.  He merely made his case, respectfully answered any questions asked of him, and that was that.

It was truly refreshing.

We'll have a lot more to go on in the weeks and months to come, and I'm certainly not going to jump up and down and shout "THIS GUY IS AWESOME!" just based on one meeting, especially not his first meeting.  But for the first time in the few months I've been attending them, I came away from a Hillsdale City Council meeting thinking that we might just be okay.

As to the suggestions themselves, I was very pleased both by what they were and that he brought them up.  The council had decided several weeks ago to schedule a joint meeting with the BPU board, but they never actually scheduled it.  They knew they wanted to include Mackie in the process of hiring a new director, but whether or not that was going to include the joint meeting was never addressed, and it wasn't on Monday night's agenda at all, either.

Mackie took the initiative, and the meeting has finally been scheduled for Tuesday the 14th at 7:00, prior to the BPU's regular meeting, in the council chambers at City Hall.

But that wasn't all!  City Manager Mackie also suggested -- and the council agreed -- that the city should receive and review the opinion of the attorney that the BPU board decided to hire behind their backs.  Which says to me -- and I've been getting some not-so-subtle hints from various directions leading up to this -- that said legal opinion is not what the Directors of the Board of Public Utilities hoped it was going to be.

Which reminds me of that little article in the Daily a few days ago in which BPU Chairman Jon Waldvogel said he'd pay for the lawyer out of his own pocket if that was the issue.

Jon, man to man: we both know that's not the issue.  C'mon.  Really.  Don't do fellow board member Duke Anderson's dirty work for him.  You're better than that.  We all know Duke was leading the charge there.  He wanted Rick Rose in place.  God only knows what little deal the two of them had going on, and don't you dare deny it, either.  If Duke was violating antitrust laws as hospital CEO to the tune of a five-grand-plus federal lawsuit, he is not above skirting the law in regard to his other duties.  He doesn't belong on any board any longer, and you don't need to be covering for him.

I'm very interested to see how this all plays out.  The directors had Terry and LewLo on their side.  Now Terry's gone, Loren's retiring, the directors are reeling, and the public and members of the council are collectively rather pissed off at the whole lot of 'em.

Has it been worth it, gentlemen?

No, I'm not gloating.  I'm not even taunting.  I'm genuinely asking: when each of these individuals went into their respective roles in this farce, what personal gain were they expecting to get out of it?  Because they sure as hell weren't doing it as a public service.  Deceit doesn't serve the public.  So there had to be something they were hoping to achieve for themselves.  In the end, they're getting nothing but disdain and loss of authority.

So has it been worth it?

Spare me the "there are two sides to every story," naysayers.  In the past week I've heard conspiracy theories, counter-conspiracy theories, and a few cases of outright nonsensical gibberish.  I've had people demand to know my sources -- as if they don't understand that the phrase "anonymous sources" means I'm not telling you, my mother, or anyone else.  I've been badgered by people who think they've got it all figured out, and they left frustrated because I wasn't having any of it.

Because it's pretty frickin' obvious that I'm right.

And I'm not tooting my own horn, because I'm not alone.  Countless others came to these conclusions long before I did.  Hell, in the grand scheme of things, I'm just settling in here!  But I'll tell you this much: I may not be the mostest intelligenty guy in the world, but I'm fairly well-off in the brain department.  I know when something's off-kilter, and it doesn't take me long to figure out who, what, when, where or why, because I never stop asking questions.

Seriously, ask my mother; it made raising me a bit of a nightmare.

What was most heartening to me was the fact that the gallery seating in the council chambers was almost full Monday night.  Many people stuck around after the earlier meet-and-greet event, and it was the biggest crowd I've ever seen in that room.

Of course, I'm sure that there were many among them whom we won't see at City Hall again for a long time to come.  Meeting the new City Manager is kind of like Midnight Mass: everyone goes to their church on Christmas Eve, but come any given Sunday morning, most of them are still asleep.

(No, I'm not without fault, either.)

We in the broadcasting industry call that a "look-in audience."  They're tuning in to see what it's all about, and there's always a falloff in the ratings for the next episode.  The trick is in maintaining as many of the listeners or viewers as you can, and this is no exception.

No, I'm not suggesting that the council should vote a member off the island at the end of every meeting... though that'd sure be entertaining.

What I am suggesting is that, while this may not be The Greatest Drama of All Time (that title is reserved for Hamlet), it is something to engage yourself in.

In fact, the council just approved a Planning Committee framework for encouraging the citizens to participate in City Hall's governance of growth and development.  It's aptly titled the "Citizen Participation Plan."  It's a good step forward, and it's a sign that the city administration wants to listen to you when they're making their decisions.  Don't pass up the opportunity.  Grab it and make use of it.

This is the progress we need to be making, and I can't deny it: it feels good.

MACKIE HITS THE GROUND RUNNING AT HIS FIRST COUNCIL MEETING

Elected officials and the general public alike arrived at Hillsdale City Hall early Monday night for a meet-and-greet function to introduce themselves to newly-hired City Manager David Mackie, and many of them stayed for his first Hillsdale City Council meeting afterward, nearly filling the gallery in the council chambers.

For the council, it was mostly business as usual.  All councilpersons were present except Emily Stack-Davis, who was excused.

In opening public comments, concerns were raised about the future of the Hillsdale Board of Public Utilities in light of the closing of the Endicott Generating Station in Litchfield.  Jeff King of the Airport Advisory Committee noted that the committee had been left out of the Citizen Participation Plan, and requested that it be added.

Several major matters of business were on the agenda, beginning with the departure of City Attorney Lew Loren, effective August 15th.

After Mayor Scott Sessions read Loren's letter of resignation, Councilperson Brian Watkins expressed his appreciation for the attorney's service, joking "I understand why you're going, and I would retire today if I could myself."

Councilperson Adam Stockford also thanked Loren, and asked if, were it appropriate, the city attorney could suggest names for consideration as his potential successor.

"It's my understanding," Loren replied, "that there will be either a committee to research it or a committee as a whole of council, serving as a committee of the whole, and at that time, if the committee requests that, I certainly could do that.  But I hesitate to do that right now publicly, because I might be putting somebody in the line of fire that really doesn't want to be there."

"Sure," Stockford responded.  "This is not something that you just give to the lowest bidder, so I appreciate that."

Included in the meeting's agenda packet was an e-mail from Mayor Sessions to City Clerk Michelle Loren, forwarding a message from City Attorney Loren with suggested next steps.  Among those options were sending the matter to the Operation and Governance Committee, forming a special committee, or the entire council taking on the matter as a committee of the whole.

Sessions stated in that e-mail, and reiterated in person at the meeting, his desire to be included in the process, as the city charter gives the mayor appointment authority and gives council authority of approval for that appointment.

"A committee of the whole," Councilperson Bruce Sharp began, "I would feel a lot better after the mess we went through with the city manager, and we had three or four applicants, and we didn't see any of them until the very end.  And the flak we caught on that from the public was not... enjoyable at times, when we had to say, 'well, we didn't know who the other people were.'"

"I feel a committee of the whole would be better suited," he continued, "because that way we all have involvement in it.  It may take longer, it may not; it's just, put the applications out there, we'll see who's interested and go from there.  I'd feel more comfortable having Lew involved in it, too."

Watkins added his support for either a special committee or a committee of the whole, noting that a committee of the whole would be preferable, but it might be difficult to align everyone's schedules.  He also added his desire to include City Attorney Loren in the process.  Councilperson Sally Kinney also voiced her support for a committee of the whole.

Councilperson Patrick Flannery cited time constraints as the basis for his suggestion to create a special committee.

"I don't think there's a lot of time before August 15th to get this through, and we started looking at how many weeks to allow the RFQ [request for qualifications] to come back, time to be able to review them properly, to interview some of the candidates.  It would be extremely difficult to get something, someone in place before August 15th, and we only have one meeting in August before August 15th."

"I would suggest a subcommittee of three," Flannery continued.  "You [Mayor Sessions] would be the chairman of that committee, and that here at this meeting, we set clear expectations of what we would expect out of that committee; whether it be a list of who the people are who applied, whatever people want out of that."

"I think that would have been extremely helpful to me as a member of the O&G Committee, because frankly, when we went into it, we had no guidance from council on expectations, and it would be helpful if, here, we set that."

Councilperson Stockford wanted some clarification on that timeframe, asking if there was a rule similar to the 60-day limit for interim city managers found in the city charter.

"It was my understanding that, at one time, Lew had said that he did work when he was asked to do work, so is the city attorney an everyday job, or is this just something that we could go to a local attorney when we needed them if we're spending a little extra time trying to find the right fit?"

"If you would do that on a temporary basis," Loren replied, "you could do that, but you surely don't want to do that on any kind of long-term basis, because there's a whole range of problems that arise with continuity of involvement.  For instance, there's a pending real estate contract right now that's going back and forth, back and forth, and the history of that is important to know."

"There's not any magic in August 15th," he added.  "I just tried to pick a date that would accommodate Council some.  I didn't want to do a 30-day notice; I thought that that was awful short, so I kind of pushed it out a couple weeks.  The council meeting after August 15th is August 17th, and you could certainly go through a city council meeting without having a city attorney present.  It's not a requirement for the city attorney to be present at the city council meeting, it's just a good idea."

Councilperson Sharp followed up that thought.

"It's a good idea because of questions we might have.  Regarding something that came up in the past, a couple council meetings ago, when we were approached about Open Meetings Act violations or something like that, it kinda put us in an uncomfortable seat.  At the time, we didn't know what the answer was, so we treaded lightly."

"Whatever firm we do consider hiring," he suggested, "make sure they have some form of legal representation here for us every time we have a council meeting so we cover our bases.  That's my only concern; I just want to make sure we don't misstep across that boundary."

Mayor Sessions then asked Loren if he would be willing to delay his resignation date until the first week of September or on an as-needed basis.  Loren said that if the council requested that, he would do so.

"I've been doing this for the city for 44 and a half years, and a couple weeks here and there really isn't going to change my life one way or the other," he added.

Councilperson Watkins reiterated the need for timeliness and responsibility, and moved to use the council as a committee of the whole to start the process as soon as possible.

Councilperson Flannery requested clarification on the structure of the process, which Mayor Sessions explained was simply that the council, as a committee of the whole, would make recommendations to the mayor, who would then present his decision to the council for approval.  Watkins added that, upon the success of the vote he moved for earlier, the mayor should begin the process with Loren.

Sessions pointed out an RFQ form passed out to the council and requested that they note any changes they would like made to it.

Councilperson Sharp had one such change already, suggesting that the requirement for the city attorney to be at all committee meetings would be costly to the taxpayer, and that the language should be changed to state that the city attorney should be at all city council meetings instead.  The mayor clarified that the form came straight from the Michigan Municipal League web site, and that it could be changed to reflect that.

The final timeline decided on was that all changes to that form would be presented to Mayor Sessions by July 10th, at which point he, City Manager Mackie and City Attorney Loren would review the changes, then send out or otherwise make the form available to law firms responding to ads placed in the media.  Additional discussion would take place at the regular council meetings on July 20th and August 3rd before an appointment is made, if possible, on August 17th.

That vote passed 6-1 with the lone dissenting vote coming from Councilperson Flannery.  The subsequent vote to accept City Attorney Loren's resignation passed unanimously.

Public hearings were held for the economic development projects involving Creative Constructs, Inc. at 42 Union Street and Marvo Properties, LLC -- the property ownership branch of Mar-Vo Minerals, Inc. -- at Stock's Mill.  No action was deemed necessary, but the hearings were open for council questions and public comment.  Economic Development Director Mary Wolfram made those presentations.

Councilperson Sharp brought up the possibility of the state legislature passing a road funding bill that would soon cut funding from economic development resources.

"Actually," Wolfram replied, "I have their assurance that because we got in under the wire and we have that letter of intent, which we received for this project back in December, that that funding is secure.  So for both of these projects, we have a letter of intent, and that is secure."

"They're going back and forth about where they're at on that;" she followed up, "whether they're going to write any more letters of intent.  We have projects sort of in the pipeline, and that's a great judgment call as to whether we're going to move forward with those projects and hope they get funded or drop the ball, and there's been a lot of discussion, but right now, we're covered for these two."

Councilperson Stockford had a question about statistics included in one of the application forms, quoting a few portions that drew his attention.

"'In the City of Hillsdale, 10.3% of the general population lives in poverty.  15.7% of residents over age 65 live in poverty.  Overall, 25.2% of populace makes less than $15,000 a year.  Over 17% do not have a high school diploma.  Unemployment is higher in the City of Hillsdale than in the county, the state, or the nation.  The median household income is lower than in the county, the state, or the nation.  The number of residents with disabilities is higher in the City of Hillsdale than in the county, the state, or the nation.'  And so on and so forth.  Those are very disturbing statistics to me."

"They are," Wolfram agreed.  "We are in the process of updating the Master Plan, which would be the document that this came from."

"Just so you know, we're kind of in a funny moment in time in this Master Plan, community development plan, because we're in the process of redoing it," she continued.  "There's been Planning Commission meeting after Planning Commission meeting on updating the plan, and there's going to be a public hearing on that new plan."

"Some of those statistics are not far off," she concluded, "and it is unfortunate, and it's something we should really all be concerned about."

Planning Commission Chairperson Laura Smith stepped up to the podium briefly to clarify that the current Master Plan, having been passed by the council in 2008, contains figures from the 2000 census, however some crosstalk between Smith and Zoning Administrator Alan Beeker might suggest that the figures in the Master Plan come from a more recent American Community Survey, which the United States Census Bureau conducts continuously between census years.

Wolfram clarified that whereas the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) application for 42 Union Street was specifically designated to deal with blight, the application for Stock's Mill was for a CDBG grant to help create jobs.  While the statistics are decidedly negative, they are presented to prove to the Michigan Economic Development Corporation, who administers the CDBG program, that there is a genuine need for this type of grant in our community.

Mar-Vo Mineral owner David Wheeler took the podium to address any questions the council had, and Councilperson Sharp led things off with his gratitude for someone doing something with the mill, asking Wheeler what the next step was.

"We're real excited about getting in there," Wheeler replied.  "We're in definite need.  Our growth rate is continuing and we're really pressed for space, so it's just a matter of going through the processes; the environmental reviews and stuff."

He added that the process has taken longer than he had anticipated.

"We originally had a purchase agreement with [current property owner] Dr. Horton for seven months, and I thought that that was plenty, and that expired, so we've rewritten it, he re-signed it, for quite a liberal length of time that made sure it was covered.  As soon as the ink's dry, we want to be in there renovating."

Wheeler went on to say that Mar-Vo is too busy manufacturing product to simply shut down and move immediately, but that once things slow down in November or December, the moving process will begin, allowing them to be ready for January or February of 2016 when things pick back up again.

"It's exciting, and it's definitely what we need," he added, "and I think we can make something happen there that sorely needs to happen."

Sharp asked how many jobs Mar-Vo plans to create, and Wheeler replied that they're committed to creating four at first, but the company's growth rate has been in excess of 30% over the last four years.

"This will enable us to develop new products," Wheeler explained.  "That [growth] has been almost exclusively our deer mineral product.  We've developed two more products.  One is actually completely ready to go.  Tomorrow, the first load of packaging is coming in."

"The potential is for a lot more than those four jobs," he concluded, "but I'm very comfortable with those four happening within the time frame of the next two years."

With the public hearings closed, Laura Smith once again addressed council, this time to give the Planning Commission's annual report.  She summarized the activities of the commission over the past year, including fifteen projects, four planning reviews, and a Michigan State University Citizen Master Planning course taken by the commission, which she encouraged all city government officials to take themselves.

Smith also addressed the city's Master Plan, which she noted is to be updated every five years.

"Last time the Master Plan was done was in 2008," she explained.  "We began the update when there was a lot of turnover in the city, and when we returned to doing the update, we decided that it didn't just need a minor revision as we had originally planned, it needed far more of a deep revision, especially since so many of us had gone through the master planning course and had a lot of ideas that needed to be implemented in the city."

"We are very familiar with the statistics, some of those that Mr. Stockford brought up, with the socioeconomics of the city and the needs of the city, so we really needed to take our time to add all of those factors that help the city in grant writing, that could the city to acquire dollars that would help us in the best way.  That would help us to really put a plan together that could be measured."

"In the past," she continued, "the Master Plan did not have measurable goals, and as well know, a goal needs to be achievable, attainable and measurable.  So we decided that we needed to rewrite the Master Plan goals so that they were achievable."

"Hopefully, Mr. Mackie will have a very nice Master Plan to work with, and it will hopefully open up many doors for the city."

Smith announced that the public hearing for the new Master Plan will be Tuesday night, the 21st, at 5:30 in the council chambers at City Hall.

Councilperson Stockford asked Smith about some zoning changes made around the college campus, and Smith explained that much of those changes were done through changing legal definitions, which led to the use of form-based code.  She expressed her desire to see the entire city eventually transition to form-based code.

Alan Beeker stepped up later to explain that form-based code is a presentation-oriented method, verbally describing the look and feel that a zone should conform to rather than strict usage definitions of residential, commercial and industrial.  He added that this is much better suited to mixed-use properties or zones.

Councilperson Flannery asked what the commission had coming up after the Master Plan is passed, and Smith replied that the Master Plan itself breaks down all of the goals within it into timeframes within which those goals should be accomplished.  She stated that roads are one of the primary issues, as well as the aforementioned form-based coding transition, and continuation of site planning projects already on the list.

Smith came back to the topic of the Census statistics once more.

"I think it's important, when [the Master Plan] comes out, that Council reads the statistics.  I think we need to know those income levels so that we can be honest.  I think we need to know that we have citizens that are living in poverty so that we can think, 'how do we help?'  We have a civic responsibility as citizens with one another and neighbors.  This just isn't an issue that is about an ordinance [solution], this is neighbor helping neighbor."

The remaining items on the agenda were mostly brief housekeeping issues:

• The council voted unanimously to appoint City Manager Mackie as the city's FOIA Coordinator.
• After clarification that her term ended with the departure of former City Treasurer Susan Arnold, the council voted unanimously to reappoint Katy Price as Deputy City Treasurer.
• Once Mayor Sessions added the Airport Advisory Committee to the text on the earlier request of committee member Jeff King during public comment, the council voted unanimously to pass the Citizen Participation Plan.
• The council voted unanimously to name Mayor Sessions the duly authorized representative of the city to sign the MEDC application, sign contracts with the MEDC, and sign all grant payment requests for the projects at 42 Union Street and Stock's Mill.
• The council voted unanimously to approve Gary Wolfram for an additional term on the Economic Development Corporation, effective for six years until July of 2021.

The final major issues dealt with came during City Manager Mackie's report, which he began by thanking the mayor, council, staff and citizens for his appointment.

"I think this is a great opportunity.  As Laura Smith had indicated, this is a good time to be in Hillsdale.  There are a lot of good things going on, and I'm proud and excited to be a part of that."

Mackie brought up two issues, beginning with the joint meeting between the Hillsdale Board of Public Utilities and the City Council.  The discussion was mostly centered around scheduling and what would be most sensible in terms of timing in relation to other meetings.

The council voted unanimously to hold the meeting on July 14th at 7:00 before the BPU Board's regular meeting in the council chambers at City Hall.

The second issue Mackie raised, related to the first, was the opinion of the lawyer that the BPU Board had independently hired to review their authority as given in the city charter.  That opinion had been placed on hold indefinitely by the City Council, as the BPU Board did not have the authority to use city funds to hire the attorney without council approval.

However, Mackie stated that it was his understanding that the attorney had done most of the work already, and he trusted the lawyer's independence, expertise and professionalism, so it was the City Manager's suggestion that the council receive and review that opinion in preparation for the upcoming joint meeting.

The council voted unanimously to receive and review the opinion.

In the final public comment session, District 1 Hillsdale County Commissioner Ruth Brown thanked City Attorney Loren for his years of service and welcomed City Manager Mackie before announcing a law enforcement training course being put on by the Suicide Prevention Coalition of Hillsdale County.  That will take place at the Hillsdale Intermediate School District facility on September 23rd, and is free for law enforcement and dispatchers.

Dennis Wainscott announced his write-in candidacy for City Council in Ward 1.

Councilperson Sharp took the opportunity in the council comment session to address an e-mail received from Holly Carpenter about equality in children's sports and health concerns related to an incident she had experienced at Fields of Dreams, and thanked Key Freese for addressing Carpenter's concerns.

"Do girls matter?" Sharp seemingly quoted a question from the message.  "Yes, they do.  Everybody's equal in this town.  Sports or otherwise, they do matter."

"Also," he shifted focus, "it's good to see there's more than one person running in the 1 Ward.  We actually have, what, two people now in Ward 1?  And one in Ward 4 so far.  I hope we get more people involved."

"It's not easy sitting in this seat," he advised.  "You are under the line of fire.  You have a bullseye on your back if you're not careful what you say and what you do.  Always remember what you say -- my wife's always taught me, remember what you say; what comes out of your mouth, because you will be held accountable when you say it."

"So, many times, you see me here with a dumb look on my face, because I'm not gonna say it, 'cause I can hear that voice in the back of my head telling me 'don't you say that!'  It's a hard job sitting here.  But you do your research and you ask your questions on a lot of thing that have been going on around here lately, and I've done that, and I've found out a lot of things, and it's an eye-opener being on council."

"It's not an easy job," he concluded, "and it's a thankless job at times, but I enjoy what I'm doing, and I'm gonna do the best I can as long as I'm on council."

Mayor Sessions thanked all involved, and the meeting was adjourned by unanimous vote.

The next regular city council meeting is Monday, July 20th at 7:00 in the council chambers at City Hall.

The joint meeting between the Hillsdale City Council and the Board of Public Utilities is Tuesday, July 14th at 7:00 in the council chambers at City Hall, to be followed by the BPU Board's regular meeting.

CORRECTION: This article previously stated that Councilperson Bruce Sharp had thanked City Clerk Michelle Loren for her help in addressing Holly Carpenter. We have since learned that Councilperson Sharp directed his gratitude to Kay Freese. We apologize for the error.

Council to Administration: You Work For Us

It was, throughout, a contentious dialog at the Hillsdale City Council's regular meeting Monday night, and it resulted in several pointed ultimatums from the governing body to the executive employees who work for it.

At the opening of the meeting, Mayor Scott Sessions noted that City Clerk Michelle Loren would be late to the meeting due to a function at her daughter's school.  Another employee took the position at the meeting in her absence.  All councilpersons were present, along with Interim City Manager Doug Terry and City Attorney Lew Loren.

Before approval of the agenda, Mayor Sessions asked City Manager Terry if there were any changes, and as anticipated, there were.  Terry requested that a new item be added: a new contract proposal for Rick Rose.  Sessions entered the new item under the Unfinished Business heading, as it was a continuing matter from the previous, joint special meeting on May 28th, which was itself a result of the previous contract proposal failing by a split vote at the May 18th regular meeting.

The only person to approach the podium during the initial public comment session was Pamela Osmun, one of three write-in candidates for the City Clerk race in the November election.

"I'm kind of disappointed and, quite frankly, confused," Osmun said, "that there would be a special election being held to vote on whether the citizens of Hillsdale want to elect or appoint the city clerk and treasurer's office."

"Ma'am," Mayor Sessions interrupted, "this is not on the agenda, so this is just on agenda items only."

"Hold on," Councilperson Adam Stockford interrupted in turn.  "According to the agenda, the clerk and the treasurer are on the agenda, and as such--"

"Okay," Sessions acknowledged Stockford, then turned the floor back over to Osmun.

"Thank you," Osmun continued.  "At this point, there are people actually running for this position; the citizens should be able to vote for the best person for those positions, according to the charter.  I'm confused as to why we need a special election when it should have been either on the May ballot or even put on the November ballot.  I don't see why we should be spending funds for a special election in the middle when it could have been put on either ballot, and I would like to ask: how is this not a change to the charter?  And when was it decided to have this special election approved?  I've been to several of the meetings, and I have never heard about it on the agenda at all."

When the time came for council discussion on that topic a few minutes later, it was Councilperson Stockford who took the lead.

"I'd like to talk about what the woman who took the podium earlier was speaking about.  I had no idea we were holding this election in August, and I do fault myself for that.  But I looked back at our language, because first of all, I found out about it because I saw it in the newspaper, and I said, 'that's not right.'  I remember us speaking about this being on the November ballot.  So I went back in our minutes, and I saw that at our March 2nd meeting, we all voted.  Of course, it passed five to three; three of us voted no.  But the majority of council voted to allow the city administration to develop language for the November ballot, spelled out in those specific words."

"Now, when the language was brought back to us," Stockford continued, "the date had been changed to August.  Like I said, I know it's my own fault that I didn't see that, but why would I be looking for that when our directive specifically stated 'November election?'"

"I surfed through the Secretery of State web page and our own city charter," he went on, "and found that this election is considered an off-year city primary, so I started looking through our charter for any words on a primary, and our charter states that if more than twice the number of candidates for any office are running for any particular position, then we hold a city primary.  If that doesn't exist, then our charter says we have to cancel the city primary."

"So what I want to know, Stockford asked, "is why are we holding this election in August when we don't have to do it?  Why are we spending money to do this?  And this is a very serious issue; this is talking about changing our charter.  I do appreciate that it's going to the voters, and I opposed that, but I accept the fact that it's going to be going to the voters.  But why wouldn't we do it at the November election?  Why would we spend the money to hold an extra election?  If this is a special election, why didn't we discuss in a the least bit holding a special election for this?  And why was our directive to the city administration disobeyed?"

"I've got a number of questions," he closed, "and I do want some straight answers to them.  So whoever I can get those from, it'll be well appreciated."

Councilperson Emily Stack-Davis mentioned her recollection that discussions of the ballot issues involved confusion at the ballot box over having to both determine if the positions should be elected or appointed and electing people to those positions.  Stockford agreed, and added that he understood concerns about the confusion that would ensue if someone wins their respective election, yet those positions become appointed by virtue of the ballot issues.

After a brief period of silence, Stockford asked for input from the council, but received none.  After another silent moment, he then asked the city attorney and city manager for their input.

City Attorney Loren replied first, explaining that the process for language approval is a back-and-forth conversation with the Attorney General's office, and that the official assisting him in that process was concerned about the date of the elections in question.

"[He] pointed out the fact that if you hold the election in November and the ballot proposals pass," Loren explained, "and you have people elected to the office, there's going to be a conflict between the two that could only be resolved by some sort of court proceedings.  He said that he was unaware of any case law that spoke to that issue, and there certainly is no statutory law that speaks to that issue.  The charter itself does not speak to that issue.  So the suggestion was that it would make a lot more sense to have that done in August.  That's when the August date first appeared."

"The language that was finally developed and informally reviewed by the Attorney General's office was then submitted to council for your review," he clarified.

"Now if somebody didn't like it," he added, "or if council as a whole, before the vote, didn't like it, that would have been the time to speak to that."

"I understand that," Stockford replied sternly.

"Okay, well, okay, but that's the history of it," Loren continued.  "And council then voted to put each of those ballot proposals on the ballot.  So that's where we stand today."

"Is this a special election?" Stockford pressed further.

"I don't know if it's-- I guess it's--" Loren stumbled.  "It's arguable, because there are four regular election dates."

There was an uncomfortable pause as Loren searched for words.

"And I don't know that it really makes a whole lot of difference.  You have to understand that this language, aside from the fact that it was adopted by this council, was submitted initially to the Attorney General's office, and the attorney general approved that language as being legal and consistent with law.  It was then sent to the governor of the state.  It was reviewed again for that kind of consistency, and approved.  So I don't see that there's any kind of a conflict between the language and any charter issue."

Stockford wasn't having that.

"Our charter speaks specifically to special elections, so if this was to be considered a special election, then our charter does address that."

"Well, what difference--?" Loren again stuttered, "I guess-- I don't even-- you could call it a regular election, a special election, or any other kind of election.  Council did pass resolutions that set the August date as the date for the election.  It was in the resolutions that you passed."

"Well, I mean, I voted against it," Stockford replied, "but you're right, I missed the August date."

The councilperson then turned his attention to his colleagues.

"You guys are all alright with holding extra elections; spending money on an election that we didn't have to hold?"

"I voted against it," commented Councilperson Bruce Sharp.

Councilperson Emily Stack-Davis then asked the ultimate question at hand:

"Did you feel that the August elections were highlighted, that anything would have changed at the meeting?"

"I honestly don't remember seeing that, so I can't honestly say," Sharp replied.

He added that he understood the language to have referred to November, but that he understood and accepted Loren's explanation.

"It does make sense," he concluded.

Mayor Sessions then presented his point of view.

"I did read the ballot language the first time, and at that time, there was not any date on the ballot language.  And then there were some changes that were made to it that were notated to us, and the second time it was sent to me, I did not read thoroughly, completely through it, because I just went over the actual changes.  So I did not notice the date, because the first time, there wasn't a date.  I did not read as thoroughly through it, which I should have."

Councilperson Brian Watkins was next, and he explained that he understands the objection and the outcome.

"I don't really think any of us caught the August change, which doesn't speak well of ourselves at that point.  But I would have supported that for the specific reason that it was changed was that it makes to have that decision made before you get to the ballot box, as that language specifically spells out when that charter amendment takes affect as prior to the election."

"I can see, too," Sessions added, "what would be different between a special election and a lawsuit.  You're gonna have to pay out money on both of those."

The conversation then came back to Stockford.

"I'm not the city attorney, but I can't see where we would get in trouble or open ourself up to a lawsuit, because it seems to me that the city charter is the final word on our elected offices.  As I pointed out in an e-mail earlier, if somebody owes money and taxes, and they're elected by the people, the charter says their election is invalid.  So if our charter says that it's an appointed position, then the election of anybody is invalid.  The charter trumps.  It's our governing document."

"And that's my other concern," he continued, "is that we're talking about holding an election in an infamously... low-turnout... off-year August primary; which I still contend that it is a primary.  It should have been canceled per our charter, because we don't have anywhere to look; Michigan law is silent on it.  We're talking about whether it passes or fails; it does so with the vote of about four or five percent of the population.  Super-low turnout.  And changing our charter is a serious affair."

"I don't feel like any of my questions were really answered," Stockford lamented.  "Who changed the date to August?"

"I did," Loren admitted.

"You changed the date to August?" Stockford confirmed.

"I did," Loren reiterated.  "I put August in there, and then I submitted it to you for approval."

"I think we need to start talking about red-line changes," Stack-Davis interjected.  "The council packet for today is 150 pages, and none of the 'highlighted changes' are highlighted."

"Also," she continued, "some of your responsibility -- while the final decision rests with this council, but also -- as the experienced executive advisors, too, highlighting those changes and having this discussion while we're voting on it is pretty important."

"The other thing I'll say as a council member," she added, "is that August is prime vacation time; people go out of the city, and even though I disagreed with it when we voted on this, we as a council decided that we were moving forward with this decision.  So to support that, you're going to have a better turnout in November, and more likely to succeed in seeing what the voters want."

She went on to explain that the clerk position had been an appointed one in the past, but a similar low-turnout off-year election was used to pass a ballot initiative changing the position to elected as it is now.

"I'm concerned that this will go one way or the other in the very highest way if it's in August versus November, when it's in front of more people, and they're expecting to go to the polls anyhow," she concluded.

"If there's a conflict, which one are you going to choose?" Loren prompted.  "And how are you going to support it?  That's the reason that the Attorney General suggested August."

Loren went on to say that he and the Attorney General talked about charter provisions in particular, and the it was pointed out to him that the only resolution for such a conflict would be some sort of declaratory action in court.

Stack-Davis asked if it would be possible for the three write-in candidates for city clerk to simply be informed that their potential election hinges on the ballot issue vote.  Loren replied that he was not certain, but that he would ask the Attorney General and report back to council with the answer.

Stockford was given the floor once again.

"I'd like everyone to remember that the last time that there was an election for city clerk and there was also an election for the charter amendment, the last council was comfortable with putting them on the same ballot.  They were both on the November ballot.  I know for a fact because I ran that year for clerk as a write-in candidate.  And there was also a charter amendment on the ballot to make the clerk an appointed position."

"No," Loren quickly jumped in, "that was to make it an appointed position in case of a vacancy mid-term.  It didn't have anything to do with the election to the office."

Sessions then recognized Interim City Manager Terry, who gave some background on the history of the ballot proposals as an argument that the motivation behind the date change was not deception, but an ability to keep the position occupied more permanently.  He also reiterated Loren's concerns about a conflict between the ballot questions and any election that might take place at the same time.

"There was no attempt to hide it or not red-line it or anything like that.  It was simply... we were controlled by the events and the review of Lansing.  And that's as clear as I can possibly be."

Councilperson Sharp reminded Terry of the $18,000 pay raise that the Officers' Compensation Committee gave to the city clerk position, which may have resulted in the increase in candidates.

"No pay raise for the city treasurer," he stated, "just had one."

Terry, taking that as potential ammunition against current City Clerk Michelle Loren, emphatically stated that she is not receiving any more money than she had been when serving only as deputy clerk.

"All we did was, she makes the same, and we just balanced it out," Terry said.  "We're not going to mislead the public that she received this tremendous pay raise.  Her salary is the same."

Sharp clarified, "I'm just stating the fact that that $18,000 pay raise all of a sudden made the job a little more interesting, and that's where we may have picked up some extra people."

"Unfortunately," Terry responded, "these fine people who are willing to serve our community weren't applicants when we vigorously had advertised that.  I wish they would have been, because a lot of this would not even be discussed--"

"I commend them for doing what they're doing now." Sharp quickly interrupted.

"So do I," Terry corrected, "however, we've already faced a commitment on the part of the council to take this to the electorate and have this decided, and I believe that is, at this point, the opinion we have to respect and observe."

Councilperson Stockford was again recognized.  "Just to close out, I accept all of your answers.  I guess I don't want to question your guys' motivation; I don't know what lies in your heart.  But I would appreciate it that, when this council makes a specific... directive... that it's followed.  And that if changes are made to our specific directive, that it's highlighted, so that when we sit up where, we know that what we told you guys to go do, you didn't change a little bit, you didn't tweak it a little bit, bring it back to us... in a bastardized state."

"I guess I'm willing to leave it at that," he said.  "I'm willing to leave it up to the people.  I think they'll show up in August, too.  But at the end of the day, I would appreciate that when we make recommendations or when we give the city administration directives, that they're followed to a T.  And if you guys decide to go down a different route, that we are made well aware that you did so."

At that point, Interim City Manager Terry apologized for the confusion.

"There was no ill intent, and we will try to do a better job of highlighting those decisions and those dates."

Mayor Sessions then recognized Councilperson Stack-Davis.

"I'm just curious how well this is going to succeed when you now have three candidates running for clerk, going door-to-door, getting their friends to come out and vote.  Now their friends are going to come out and vote in August, and for you all on council who might be in support of this, this is not a good sign."

She further described that moving the ballot issues to August will now result in people who only want the position to be elected to come out and vote, which clearly is not the will of the council in wanting to make the position appointed.

"I'm concerned about that.  If no one else is, I'll rest my case and we'll move on."

"Of course I'd be concerned about that," Stockford added with a smile.

The conversation about that topic settled, the next item on the agenda was the newly-added discussion about the revamped proposed contract for Rick Rose.

Mayor Sessions gave Interim Manager Terry the floor, at which point he laid out the situation's history.  He stated his case that this reworked contract was not being proposed out of defiance, but rather a belief that the initially-proposed three-year contract "was not palatable to City Council" due to the time period proposed and the lack of a succession plan.

This new three-year contract proposal, which Terry explained that he had just written today, would not only provide a plan of succession, but would attempt to find a replacement for Rose within 18 month, at which point Rose would take on the role of training his successor for the following 18 months or less.  He cited major BPU projects currently taking place or that are in the pipeline as making such a succession and training plan a necessity.

Councilperson Watkins led off discussion, saying that he supported the original contract, and he would support this one as well if not for the fact that it remains a three-year contract.  He stated his belief that this would be interpreted negatively by the public as the administration simply re-submitting the same contract.

Mayor Sessions echoed Watkins' sentiments, and added the suggestion that the 18 month terms in the new contract language be reduced to 12 months.

Terry then made it known that the contract could be terminated at any time.  He also stated that Rose was not aware of the new proposal and had not seen it.  In creating the document, Terry said he attempted to stay in line with the Board of Public Utilities' assessment of Rose's talents.  He also reiterated that the major projects and power purchase agreements required Rose's expertise, and that he felt three years will be faster than anyone thinks.

"I had City Attorney, Mr. Loren, late this afternoon review it," Terry said.  "He corrected some grammatical errors, but other than that, the substance of this is my... doing, so... please... come after me."

Councilperson Stockford asked about the termination clause.

"You said it can be terminated at any time, but that's terminated by the Board of Public Utilities or the city manager."

"That's correct, and that is how it stands now," Terry answered.

"I'm aware, thank you." Stockford replied.

After a long awkward pause, Mayor Sessions asked if there was any further council discussion, and seeing that there was none, he asked if there was a motion to approve the new contract.  Councilperson Watkins made the motion, and Councilperson Sally Kinney supported.  Sessions then asked if there was any more council discussion.

And that was when the bottom dropped out.

"Mr. Mayor?"

"Councilperson Flannery."

"Point of order.  According to our adopted council procedures, Section 10.5, 'a motion to reconsider can only be made by someone who's on the prevailing side of the matter.'  Mr. Watkins was not on the prevailing side."

"Okay.  Alright, thank you," Sessions muttered.

"There was no motion made," Flannery emphasized.

"Alright," Sessions replied a little more clearly.  "Thank you for bringing that to our attention."

After about five seconds of silence, Terry spoke up.

"I'd ask clarification for 'prevailing side.'  If it's a 4-4 tie, is there a prevailing side?"

"Well, if we want to get technical about it," Flannery explained, "we want to read it verbatim.  'A motion to reconsider may only be made by a proponent of the decision or action for which reconsideration is sought.'  So 'proponent;' what's 'proponent?'  A proponent is someone who argues for something; who makes a point for something... for the decision.  The people who voted 'no' on this, the people who voted 'yes,' were proponents on two different sides.  I was a proponent on the side that was 'no.'  The contract did not pass because it was a tie; which, according to statute, in order for something to pass, it has to be a majority vote.  A tie is not considered a majority.  So it failed.  So those who voted 'no' are on the prevailing side."

Terry, seemingly still confused on the matter, asked for clarification.  "Proponent or o-pponent?"

"Pro-ponent," was the simple reply from Flannery.

Terry attempted to further argue the point.

"The city administration brought before this council at this particular council meeting the hope that this contract would be by, and of course, motion made, and second by proponents willing to adopt the contract as presented to this council.  Those voting 'no,' would that not be considered 'opponents' to that action?"

"It's a proponent of the side that won," Flannery unwaveringly stated.

"'Proponent' depends on which side you're on.  But what you're proposing right now is Section 10.5.  It's something that was put into our procedures to protect decisions that were made.  Because what could happen is, here... let's say Mr. Stockford wasn't here one day on a 4-4 tie.  All of a sudden, people realize, 'hey!  Mr. Stockford is not here.'  It would allow council to bring up motions again in the future, to have a vote on something that didn't pass."

What this does is," he continued, "it protects the side that won.  That if, for some reason, people are absent from a meeting they're eyeing to attend, those who were on the failing side can't take advantage of that absence to bring something and put it back onto the agenda on short notice.  As this was today, as... I received no notification we were going to do this until I got to my meeting and had this in front of me.  That's what this is protection against; Section 10.5."

Flannery added, "If you want to sit here and argue what 'proponent' is, that's fine.  But what I'm telling you is what's in our Section 10.5; what 'proponent' is.  I'm no expert on grammar.  If I would've, I would've probably asked one of our instructors at our local school to come in to explain to us what 'proponent' means.  But, from my humble education that I have, I can tell you right now -- and also, from my experience in Robert Rules -- it's the proponents who were on the winners, and the fact that this was a tie means that the people who voted 'no' in this case were the ones who won.  So therefore, a motion can only be made by those who voted 'no.'"

"And if you want to go back and forth, we can on this.  But I would suggest we move on."

Terry, whose body language suggested much displeasure with being dressed down, replied somewhat tersely at first, but measured his words as he continued.

"I work for you, council.  I'm not here to debate with you, I... am bringing something forward, and felt that this was a... subject that was of great importance, and... again, this was no attempt to hijack or to mislead council.  I felt very strongly that it was an attempt to try to give... consistency and longevity to the BPU under a controlled course.  By way of direction, if that's how council feels, then again, I work for you, and I follow your direction."

A deafening silence fell upon the room as the members of the city's government appeared at a loss as to what to do next.  Finally, Mayor Sessions pulled it together.

"Okay.  What does council... want to do... at this point... in time... toward... that motion?  Does the council have... any discussion that they want to... go forward?  Because... we're looking at a time when... we won't have a director... so..."

Flannery was recognized.

"Assuming that the new city manager's contract passes this evening, I would suggest that we ask our interim city manager and the new city manager to work together to begin a search for a new BPU director per the decision of council."

"Is that a motion?" Sessions asked.

"No, that is not a motion," Flannery replied.  "I think our vote was the decision and a direction to staff."

Seeing no further council discussion, Sessions moved on, and the matter was closed.

As such, Rick Rose is no longer the Director of the Hillsdale Board of Public Utilities, and a search for a new director will begin as soon as possible.

Notably, when Sessions asked Terry if there were any additions to the city budget and taxes, Terry's "not at this time, Mayor," was loud enough to fill the room well above the amplifying power of the installed sound system.

Those resolutions passed unanimously, as did the OPRA application for Creative Constructs, Inc.'s overhaul of the former Alsons building at 42 Union Street earlier in the evening.

Also passed unanimously was the designation of a new Neighborhood Enterprise Zone for residential development, now known as NEZ #2.  It consists of the city blocks between Fayette Street on the south and and College Street on the north, and between Park and West Streets, West and Manning Streets, and the properties lining the east side of Manning Street.  This zone will provide tax exemptions for further development and renovation of housing in that neighborhood.

The next item on the agenda was the hiring of new City Manager David Mackie, who was present at the meeting.  Councilperson Sharp was the first to comment.

"I'm not thrilled about the starting wages, but that's been discussed in the past before.  But other than that, we need to have a full-time, truly dedicated to the city -- only the City of Hillsdale -- city manager.  So I'm in support of this contract.  And, um, heh!" he chuckled, directing his words to Mackie, "Welcome to the City of Hillsdale."

Mayor Sessions brought attention to an issue he had with some language in the contract.

"I have a problem with Section 7, 'Benefits upon Termination without Regard to Cause.'  In it, it says 'but Hillsdale elects not to extend or renew' the contract.  The severance will be paid whether the contract is renewed or not, or extended.  I have a problem with the contract in that regard."

 With that out of the way, the motion was made for approval of the contract by Councilperson Watkins and supported by Councilperson Kinney.

Mayor Sessions then took the opportunity for final council comment on the matter to express the full breadth of his concerns.

"There's nothing personal about this, it's just business," he began.  "I do not support this contract for several reasons.  As I have stated before, I do not agree with the salary; the $95,000 a year.  I think the salary should be a progressive salary from year to year.  I also think there should be incentives, and in the contract, there are enough-- er, not.  And then I also found this about the 'Hillsdale elects not to renew or extend the contract, but will pay the settlements.  So with that said, if this contract is approved, I will honor the decision the council makes.  I will be looking forward to working with Mr. Mackie as a city manager.  I will do everything in my power and my ability to work with Mr. Mackie, improving and moving the City of Hillsdale forward in the best and most positive way."

That led directly into the roll-call vote, and Mackie's contract passed 7-1 with Sessions being the lone "no" vote.

David Mackie is now our new City Manager, and as stated at previous meetings, he will begin working with Interim City Manager Terry for a period of roughly two weeks to allow for a smooth transition.

Next, updated Freedom of Information Act rules were made necessary by state legislative action, and they passed unanimously, as did the permit for Night Magic Displays to put on the city's fireworks show on the night of July 3rd.

And lastly, the Hillsdale County Intermediate School District Special Education Parent Advisory Committee presented Dial-A-Ride with their 2014-2015 Excellence in Special Education Award in the Business Domain.  Interim City Manager Terry took a moment to thank Judy Buzo and the Dial-A-Ride staff for all that they do for the community.

Public comments in the final session included more thanks for Dial-A-Ride, announcements about upcoming events at the airport and in downtown, and additional concerns about the firing of Rick Rose and his drunk driving arrest.

In final council comment, Councilperson Watkins suggested that the Public Services Committee meet and establish the search process for the new BPU director.  He went on to make a motion to that end, but there was some confusion as to whether or not that was allowed during council comment.  When asked, City Attorney Loren said, "I don't see why not; it's still a part of the council meeting."  Thus, Councilperson Stack-Davis seconded the motion.

However, Councilperson Flannery clarified that, as expressly stated in the city charter, the city manager has sole appointment power to the position of BPU director.

Councilperson Stockford agreed, and added that there should be a Public Services Committee meeting soon, anyway, in order to coordinate with the city manager on the search.

Both Interim City Manager Terry and City Attorney Loren suggested that now-Manager Mackie join the committee in order to be involved in the process early on.  As he approached the podium to address the issue, Councilperson Stack-Davis broke the monotony by humorously asking, "Would you like to join our committee?"

"Sure!" Mackie began good-naturedly.

"Basically, over the next month, I'll be finishing my duties with Taylor.  I'm training my replacement and/or using my vacation time I have accumulated, so I will have time available to come out to any other meetings if necessary in advance of July 6th."

"I definitely think, as council," Councilperson Sharp added, "we need to sit down with you and go over things, discuss what we see down the road, what our plans are for you, and help you that way.  We definitely do have to sit down with you, though, and have a meeting.  Public meeting, so the public knows; none of these OMG vio-- er, excuse me, Open Meetings Act violations."

"You bet," Mackie answered.  "Based on the contract language, that is required, so that's definitely something I would be willing to do, to have clear direction from the council and mayor."

Councilperson Stack-Davis asked if, in regard to the BPU director search, if it would helpful to have the BPU board, the Public Services Committee, Doug Terry and David Mackie all meet to coordinate.  Mackie agreed, and as such, the motion made by Councilperson Watkins was restated with Stack-Davis as second.  Flannery remained in his position and objected to the motion.  Upon roll-call vote, the motion passed 6-2 with the dissenting votes coming from Flannery and Stockford.

In further council comments, Councilperson Stack-Davis requested that the clerk's office add page numbers to the agenda packets.

"I know that we switched over from Granicus to Livestream; it's a different setup.  But if you put in page numbers so we can follow along, and also for the general public, too.  I can imagine approaching a stack of 150 pages or more is a little overwhelming."

She also requested a standing calendar of elections, upcoming events and deadlines, constantly updated and placed in the agenda packets.

"It'll be good for us to be aware of things that are upcoming, and good for us to plan back from deadlines.  If that's okay with everyone else."

That was the end of the meeting, and before adjourning, Mayor Sessions congratulated City Manager Mackie and thanked Interim City Manager Terry and the council, committees and staff.  Councilperson Kinney moved to adjourn, Stack-Davis supported, and the voice vote was unanimous.

The next regular meeting of the Hillsdale City Council is Monday, June 15th at 7:00 PM in the council chambers at Hillsdale City Hall.

The Issue of Ballot Issues

I've caught a bit of flak recently.

No, not that flak, and not from the people you're thinking of, either.  That was to be expected.

This was from a reader who took issue with the fact that I didn't mention the other significant matter at the last Hillsdale City Council meeting: the approval of November ballot language that asks if we should make the city clerk and city treasurer positions appointed rather than elected.

Let me explain my editorial decision: I didn't cover those two council votes because of the time-sensitivity of the city manager search debacle.  The information about the two publicly-named candidates had only just recently been discovered, and I even jumped ahead of my own promised publishing date to make sure that that information was shared here the day of the city council meeting in the hopes that you might take it and run with it that night.  The piece that I published instead that Wednesday was the follow-up, addressing both the arrogant attitude of resentment that the council displayed while voting to offer David Mackie the job anyway, as well as addressing some of the uproar that Monday's piece had instigated.

By the way, in the time since, Mackie has withdrawn his name from contention in Farmington, so providing that the contract gets worked out to his and the council's satisfaction, the man is now our city manager.  Doesn't that just fill you with hope for our future?

Now, sure, I could have covered the ballot measures, too.  I could have given you a whole boatload of issues to take to that meeting.  But there are two primary reasons why I didn't.

The first is that, on that particular Monday night, we needed to be focused on the most pressing issue, because the council was guaranteed to try to ram this through -- definitely unethically, and quite likely illegally -- whether we liked it or not.  If anyone was going to show up to oppose them, there had to be a united front, not a handful of people all talking about different subjects during the public comment periods.

The second reason is that the ballot language is just that: ballot language.  What the council voted to do that night was approve the language for two ballot measures; one for the city clerk position, the other for the city treasurer position.  This language asks the voters if the mayor should appoint their chosen candidate to those positions to be approved by the city council, who will then establish the terms of employment (length of time, salary, and conditions).

That's what they voted on.  Just the language.  The ball is now in our court.  In order to make either position appointed, the city charter has to be amended, which means that we have to approve it.  The city council can't just vote on it and make it so, this is our choice to make, and we won't be making it until November.  That's why it wasn't such a pressing issue at the last city council meeting.

The person who brought this concern to me rightly pointed out that the ballot measures could have been stopped at the council meeting if we had convinced them to vote the language down, and that the fact that the language was even presented to begin with is just yet another sign that the good ol' boys want to consolidate their own power and take it away from you.  All of that is true.

However, that being said, they were going to do it anyway.  The city manager vote proved that.  If something that important was something they didn't bother listening to our objections over, ballot language for an issue that we're going to have to vote on anyway isn't going to be held up by our objections, either.

Not to mention the fact that several people had already filed as write-in candidates for the city clerk election before the council voted on the ballot issue. They knew that there are people who wish to fill the void, they just didn’t care.

Well, I shouldn't say that they all didn't care.  It should be noted that there were three votes against the clerk measure's approval, which is a good sign that we do at least have some city council members who are listening to their constituents, or at least have the sense themselves that this is not the right thing to do.  So thanks to councilpersons Emily Stack-Davis, Bruce Sharp (who still needs to learn how to deal with the Internet) and Adam Stockford for their "no" votes.

But as Dame Shirley Bassey sings, "this is all just a little bit of history repeating." City Hall has attempted this before.  They waited the two years required by state law and are now putting it on the ballot yet again, despite the fact that they were told "no" the last time.  Which means that they're wasting your tax dollars and mine by repeatedly putting a question they've already had answered on the ballot.  Elections ain't cheap.

Now, all that being said, this is a good test for us.  Are we truly committed to this city and making it function to everyone's benefit?  Or are we -- as I've put myself on the line to accuse us all, myself included, of being -- simply apathetic and complacent?

Do we want to keep these two elected positions in our control as a check on corruption?

Or do we just not care?

These votes will prove whether or not we're actually motivated to self-govern.

You're going to hear the pro-appointment side go nuts with their campaign.  Especially now that the city clerk section on the very same ballot is going to be empty.  They're going to point at that empty row and say "see?!  Nobody wants to do this!  That's why we have to have this power, because nobody wants to run an election campaign for these positions!"

And you know what?  I'm not going to lie: that's a rather compelling argument.

But here's the thing: if nobody runs for the position, the city council has to appoint someone to it anyway.  They won't tell you that little factoid.  Those are positions that, by state law, have to be filled.  That's why that fallback is there.  The ONLY purpose for making them appointed positions rather than elected ones is to consolidate power in the hands of a select few and usurp it from the voters.

That is the ONLY reason.  Do not let anyone try to convince you otherwise.

You see, a pattern has very clearly emerged at 97 N. Broad.  Do you recognize it?

• City employee, BPU director and habitual drunk driver Rick Rose yells at and berates the city council to their faces.
• City employee, legal counsel and alliterative name-haver Lew Loren rejects street repair plans citing lack of precedent simply because he doesn't like them.
• Soon-to-be-former city employee, former interim city manager and displeased political cartoon character Doug Terry sits on a committee to choose his own replacement when the position would fall to him if nobody is chosen (and he gets to keep his $50-an-hour job with this city as long as the search continues).

And what gets done about it?  Nothing.  Nobody even bats an eye.  Council just sits there and takes it.  Council is complicit by virtue of their failure to take control of these situations.  Council even participates in these situations at times.

This is why it is imperative that we reject these ballot proposals just as soundly as we rejected Proposal 1 last Tuesday (which, by the way, well done on that one, Michigan; that was absolutely the right call).  We cannot let a small cadre of city employees, who the council should be exerting their authority over, continue to ram their personal ambitions down our throats.

The good ol' boys have to be held accountable.

...And So They Did It Anyway.

Apparently we've hit a nerve.

References to "the Internet" and "Facebook" were made at the city council meeting Monday night, quite obviously referring to this blog and the Facebook group Hillsdale's Hot Debates... and not exactly with glee or in a pleasant tone.

They don't like that we're holding them accountable, and that's why we can't stop.

Despite the obvious municipal code violations -- and I challenge city attorney Lew Loren to explain why the obvious violations are perfectly okay ("because I say so" is not a valid answer) -- the city council went ahead and approved David Mackie as the new city manager by all but one vote, the lone dissent coming from Mayor Scott Sessions (whom I thank for his decision).

So now, as long as he accepts the job -- I understand he's still waiting to hear back from Farmington -- David Mackie is our new city manager.  You know, the guy who filed for bankruptcy and had to defend highly questionable financial practices in a court of law?  Yeah... he's set to become our city manager now.

Does that not demonstrate outright contempt for you, the people of the City of Hillsdale?

We cannot stop.

I'm encouraged... and not only because I woke up to see that my last post had over 500 page views by Tuesday morning (though I do thank you for the ego boost... as if I needed it, right?).

I'm encouraged because you are motivated.

Whether or not you agreed with what I said about civic apathy in this city, it motivated you to prove me wrong, and that was exactly the goal.  I said so at the very end of the post in question.

But this isn't about me, despite the fact that they're trying to make it about me.  Have you noticed how they've been attacking me and my credibility?

It's not about me.  I know it and they know it.  If it were about me, they would have been attacking me before I ever said word one.

No, this is about them and their disdain for you.

See, the good ol' boys, they don't like that you've been informed.  They don't like that you're getting the information that they're withholding from you.  They don't like that you're learning what they've been doing behind your back this whole time.  And they're attacking me -- and the people at Hot Debates who dug up the information in the first place -- for bringing it to your attention.  Make no mistake about it: if it had been John Doe who had written that post, they'd be saying exactly the same things about John Doe.

It's not personal to them, it's just business.  Business being guided by the current city manager and the city attorney into a cesspool.

And you need to be the ones to put an end to it.

Oh, don't worry, I'm not trying to be the commander of the forces here.  That's the last thing I want.  Besides, as we all know, you are not my personal army.

No, all I can ask of you is that you think critically and participate actively.  We can disagree on any given issue.  You can dislike my style.  And hey, feel free to think that I'm just some arrogant jerk who spouts off when he shouldn't.  You wouldn't be alone, and that's okay, because none of that matters.

All that matters here is that you care enough about this city to participate in making it a better place.

Because that's what's been lacking.  That's why we have four city council seats and a city clerk position open with no one filed to run for them.  That's why this city manager search was able to be conducted for so long with no one to ask any questions about why we're not getting any details about it or any of the candidates.  That's why the council chamber is usually pretty empty during meetings.

We haven't been paying attention, and we were apathetic.

For most of the residents, it's because they just plain didn't care.  And let's face it: the majority of any population is politically inactive.  That's never going to change.

For the rest of us, it's frustration.  We've been so beaten by the system for so long that we simply gave up thinking that there was ever going to be anything we could do about it.

Like I said in my last post, I include myself in this.  I'm just as guilty as you are, and I readily and ashamedly apologize to you for not doing more than I could have.  I will do better.

I can only ask that you do better, as well.

Beat the damn doors in.  Don't give up.  It's not over until you make it right, and even then, it'll be a constant battle just to keep things right.  That's the nature of politics, no matter what the scale.  Don't relent.  Keep fighting.

The best way to do that is to start attending city council meetings.  You can download the packets for all regular meetings and watch live and archived video of those meetings by following this link.

Let's once again prove Hillsdale's motto true: It's The People.

Apathy and Corruption in the City of Hillsdale

NOTE: This post is coming a couple of days early due to its time sensitivity.  The Hillsdale City Council meeting at which a city manager hiring is expected to be approved is tonight, Monday, May 4th, at 7:00 PM.

If I told you to go to 97 North Broad, would you know where that is?

Chances are dangerously high that you wouldn't.  Because nobody in the City of Hillsdale seems to know that we even have a City Hall anymore, let alone know where it is, what's going on there right now, or who's seeking to represent their ward in the November election.

Do you even know that there is a November election?

Do you even know that there are vacancies on the city council right now?

Are you paying attention to local politics at all?

Are you even alive right now?

I shouldn't be too terribly harsh.  We have no real press in this city.  We have no newspaper outside of a lone reporter, a lone sportswriter, and whoever Gatehouse can dupe into writing for them for a pittance this week.  We have a radio station that rips and reads the police blotter, and that's about it.  Sometimes the Jackson Citizen Patriot covers a few stories from the county, but their audience is Jackson County, not us.  And getting the Lansing TV stations to cover anything going on here?  Ha!  Good luck!

It's no wonder you're so woefully uninformed.  There's barely any journalism going on in this town at all.

But let's face it: that's no excuse.  Those of us living here at the spring of the St. Joe just don't give a damn.  City politics?  We can't be bothered.  It's not important to us.  We've got bigger fish to fry.  We're more concerned with... well, anything but city politics.

Remember that big hullabaloo about the streets last year?  City Hall wanted to unnecessarily raise taxes to pay an outrageously overestimated amount of money for street repair, and we collectively -- correctly -- replied, "are you kidding me?"  But beyond rejecting that ballot proposal, what else did you do?  Oh, sure, a few people showed up at city council meetings to present alternatives... which, of course, the council simply rejected out of hand, saying "I don't wanna!" in their best three-year-old voices.  But were you there to see it?  Were you even aware that it had happened?

Again, the chances are dangerously high that the answer is "no."

I keep saying "dangerously" because you're most likely unaware of the latest news to be coming from the pentagonal structure sitting between Broad, Hillsdale and Carleton.

(Did you even know that City Hall is a pentagon?)

In case you missed it -- and you did, because literally everybody did -- April 21st was the deadline to file petitions to run for the vacant city council seats in Wards 1, 2 and 4.

(Do you even know what ward you live in?)

Nobody filed.  Absolutely nobody.

Well, okay, one person did.  Bruce Sharp.  But he's an incumbent.  Everyone else is either term-limited or leaving for their own reasons.

That means that there are currently four council seats that will go unfilled barring write-in campaigns, and Ward 2 (which happens to be where I live) will have no representation on the council at all.  Additionally, no one filed to run for city clerk, either, so after this election, council is going to have to appoint someone to that position.

Now, before you say "well, then, maybe YOU should run, Josh," I'll disabuse you of that notion immediately.  That's not my calling.  I can barely manage my own life let alone the governance of a city.  Even if it were my calling, I'm not familiar with the inner workings of city government enough to simply jump in and expect to be an effective legislator.  Because, unlike our current state representative, I actually take the time to learn about my jobs before I bother applying for them.  I don't belong in that seat right now, if ever.

There's another seat that I don't belong in, an equally important seat, and none of the people currently up for the job belong in it either.  I'm referring, of course, to that of the city manager.

Last week, in the Facebook group Hillsdale's Hot Debates (the "social media" that WCSR credited with unearthing this story), a couple of members did some digging into the history of the top two candidates that the search committee is considering, and they came up with some rather interesting facts.  Among them being that one candidate, William Cooper, bankrupted the last city he ran.  The other candidate, David Mackie, bankrupted himself and faced a bit of legal trouble for ripping off his investors in an apartment complex renovation deal.  Oh, and the guy heading up the search committee?  That would be Doug Terry, the interim city manager... who, it has been rumored, will get the job if no one else is hired.

Conflict of interest?  Nahhhhhhhhhh.

Of course, knowing that the heat was on, the city put together a hastily-scheduled public meeting to introduce the two candidates.  How hastily?  They announced it to the media on April 30th, and it was scheduled for May 2nd.  That's right: a Saturday afternoon meeting announced on Thursday, when most people already had plans for the weekend lined up well before then.

Intentional flight under the radar?  Nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Now, Linda Brown resigned as city manager all the way back on February 2nd.  You might be asking yourself right now: isn't there some sort of time limit as to when the city council has to hire a new one?

Why, indeed there is!

According to the municipal code, "The Council shall, within 90 days after any vacancy exists in the position of City Manager, appoint a City Manager for a period of not less than one year nor more than five years and shall fix his compensation."  The period of 90 days after Linda Brown's resignation?  Guess when that ended?  Yep.  May 3rd.  The day after the hastily-scheduled public meeting.  A Sunday, no less.  A Sunday that has come and gone, and we still have no city manager.

Additionally, the code also states that [emphasis mine] "The Council may appoint or designate an acting City Manager for a period not to exceed sixty days during the period of a vacancy in the office or during the absence of the City Manager from the City and shall have all the responsibilities, duties, functions and authority of the City Manager."  Which means that Terry's appointment has actually been longer than allowed by law for more than a month's time now.

One Hot Debates group member who was at Saturday's meeting reported to me that Terry was rather irate at the fact that his actions and motivations were being called into question -- on the Internet, no less; the nerve of those people! -- and after arguing against allowing public comment, he had to be taken out of the room and shown that the law requires it.  That fight then continued in front of the city council, which led to a vote to essentially tell him to sit down and shut up, and public comment was, in fact, allowed.  Because, you know, the law requires it.

Needless to say, Doug Terry is not a happy camper right now.

Much of the problem is the "good ol' boy" situation in this town.  Some of it just comes with the territory of small town politics: everyone knows everyone else.  But that being the case, and everyone being well aware that conflicts of interest are to be avoided, there should be a lot less of it going on, and it's just business as usual around here.  As the late, great, George Carlin famously said, "it's a big club, and you ain't in it."

Yet even if it weren't for that club, what it really comes down to is the fact that there has been no transparency in this search at all.  That fact is merely exacerbated by the "good ol' boy" situation.  The city council ostensibly conducted the search internally in order to save money -- instead of hiring an independent firm to do it, as is done by every other city that even half-assedly tries to make it look like they're not as corrupt as Hell itself.  I mean, hey, it's a fairly decent excuse.  Begging poor is relatively easy to pull off when roughly half of your streets make Kabul look like a motorist's paradise.

But it gives those in charge of the internally-conducted search far too great an opportunity to dupe not only the council, but the entire city as a whole.  There was supposedly a wide field of potentials to choose from, and we're only hearing about two of them.  We have no other names, we have no information about how these two were picked, we would know absolutely nothing about even THESE two candidates if it hadn't been for a couple of people outside the process -- and not even in the media -- doing a simple friggin' Google search!

Did the city council even bother to do that much?  Apparently not, because councilman Patrick Flannery told the Daily News, and this is a direct quote, "We are happy to present these two candidates.  I see both candidates moving the city forward, to help us with the goals we have before us."

Bankruptcy and fraud are goals of the government of the City of Hillsdale?  Well, to quote Spock, "It would explain a great many things."

That same Hot Debates member tells me that only one other person from the group was there Saturday afternoon, and while disappointment isn't quite appropriate in this case given the short notice, it's not as if the third floor is packed to standing room at any given city council meeting.  This is the norm in this town.  Everybody bitches about the legitimate problems, but when it comes time to actually take action, nobody shows up.  It's like we're living in an M. Night Shyamalan movie called "The Non-Event."  All this buildup, and then... just totally flatlines.

Actually, that pretty much describes every M. Night Shyamalan movie, but that's neither here nor there.

The point is, we need to get off of our fat backsides and do something.  And I'm yelling at myself here just as much as I'm yelling at you.  I'm guilty of this, too.  We all are.  Civic involvement in this city has just hit what is most likely an all-time low.  Certainly the lowest it's been in any of our lifetimes.

And when we all find out what the result of that apathy is, complaining about the streets is going to be the least of our worries.

Correction: In the initial version of this post, I accidentally flipped the names of the city manager candidates in relation to their respective issues.  The post has been updated to correct the error.