Duke Anderson's Leeroy Jenkins Moment

At the risk of sounding like those theocrats whom I'm constantly shaming, I have to ask this question (even if I do so with tongue planted firmly in cheek):

Could it have been divine intervention, the power outage and subsequent 70,000-gallon raw sewage overflow, providing us with some damning evidence for last night's joint meeting between the BPU Board and the City Council?

The Lord works in mysterious ways.

Honestly, what are the odds?  Lightning takes out the entire grid and massive amounts of sewage get dumped into the St. Joe through an overflow pipe that isn't even supposed to be there.  What are the odds that those things would happen on the very day of the special meeting at which the Council would draw the lines clearly for its subordinate public utility advisory committee?

Let's put this all together into the proper context, shall we?  This meeting was called because the BPU Board, after being told in no uncertain terms that their beloved super drunk superintendent wasn't going to be coming back, hired an attorney to find a loophole.  Don't let them lie and tell you otherwise, that's exactly what their motivation was, and they damn well know it.

Keep in mind, when Rick Rose's proposed new contract was still on the table, we were told by then-Interim City Manager Doug Terry (and the Board themselves at the Open Meetings Act violation -- ahem, sorry, "previous special joint meeting;" that's what I meant to say there) that, essentially, Rick was the BPU, that without him the entire operation would fall apart, and God forbid any major issues should arise when he isn't there to oversee things, because Rick Rose is The Man For The Job^®.

Disclaimer: "The Man For The Job" is a fully registered trademark of The Hillsdale Good Ol' Boy Network and is used without permission.  All rights reserved.  Void where prohibited.  Your mileage may vary.  Member FDIC.  Consult a physician before beginning a Rick Rose regimen.

Of course, pressed further -- toward the end of that very same OMA violation -- Terry and company were begrudgingly forced to admit that, well, no, the place wouldn't just fall apart the moment Rose's contract ended; that there might kinda sorta may be some people there who, you know, actually run the place from day to day, and, I dunno, maybe they might know a thing or two about what they're doing.  I guess.  Maybe.  We'll see.

Well, hey, guess what?  We got a chance to see!  Sure enough, we had two massive related system failures after Rose's departure -- through no fault of the people who currently work there, mind you -- and amazingly enough, they got resolved in a timely manner!  It's a miracle!  Hallelujah!

Or maybe, you know, it might have been the employees doing their jobs, which in no way required Rick Rose to be the man in the office making the decisions.  Could that be a plausible scenario?

Nah, let's go with the miracle explanation!  It better reflects the Good Ol' Boys' narrative!

Now, some might argue that the sewage spill in particular is a sign that Terry and the Board were right; that things did fall apart without Rose's oversight.

Lose that notion right now.  This is the mess that Rick Rose left behind.

Do you have any idea how many times the Department of Environmental Quality has had to step in under Rose's watch and tell the BPU to, quite literally, get its shit together?  The water treatment plant has, for years, been an environmental disaster just waiting to happen.  That it happened after Rose left was only a freak matter of sheer chance.

While funding was never sufficient to fix the problems that he knew existed in one fell swoop, Rose could have at least made some progressive repairs.  Instead, he cut corners and let the system become a dilapidated mess that is essentially impossible to fix and needs to be entirely replaced right this very minute.

No, we don't have the money to do that, either.

And get this: the reason why the back-up generator didn't kick on?  That's because there is no backup generator at the wastewater treatment plant.  The following fact was made mention of several times at last night's meeting: we are the only city in the entire State of Michigan with a wastewater flow of one million gallons or more that does not have a backup generator on site at its treatment plant.

So what have we relied on all these years?  Power routing.  Apparently, the grid has been set up so that the treatment plant can be fed from any one of five substations in case the one it's on goes down.

The problem Tuesday morning was that, when lightning hit the main substation for the city, it ran along the lines and fried three other substations as well.  The only substation that didn't go down was the Industrial Park.  There was no way to shift the feed from there to anywhere else, so thus, we got the nightmare disaster scenario we just went through: the backup to the backups failed, and the river is contaminated as a result.

The impression that the current BPU employees are under is that the DEQ had been satisfied with this setup for all these years, but that satisfaction had suddenly changed back in May, when they warned Rose after there had been a two-hour power outage and possible danger of overflow.

I'm not so certain that that impression is wholly accurate.  I get the feeling that the DEQ had warned Rose about it many times before, but being on his way out, this was the one that Rickie chose to actually be honest about.  Because the word of Rickie J. Rose isn't so trustworthy these days (more on that later).

For the record, no spill happened back then, but the BPU Board was told last night that regulators essentially told Rose at that time that we either get a backup generator NOW or there was going to be hell to pay.

Taxpayers, make no mistake about it: after Tuesday morning's fiasco, you will be paying that hell.

This is also Doug Terry and the current BPU Board's legacy.  Rose was their man.  The proposed new contract for him contained glowing praise about his character and professionalism.  Character and professionalism does not result in 70,000 gallons of  human waste in one of the Midwest's most important watersheds.  And yet, that's what Rose's leadership (such as it was) has led to.

Both Terry and the Board sought to be his enablers.  They fought a power struggle with the City Council because they wanted the man responsible for this environmental disaster -- and make no mistake about it, this is an environmental disaster, don't let anyone try to downplay it to you -- to keep his job despite what is turning out to be decades of mismanagement and lying.

Yes, lying.  Lies of omission, outright lies, lies by way of intimidation... all of that addressed in passing by Councilperson Bruce Sharp at last night's meeting.  I've been hinting at it for weeks now, but there are people out there who have been keeping silent for many years about what kind of boss Rick Rose really was.  You're going to be hearing stories in the time ahead that reveal a reign of terror-enforced mediocrity, and if you think it stopped at just withholding information from the BPU Board, may I remind you that he threatened to murder four councilpersons.

Oh, and on that note, the Michigan State Police kept it hush-hush and quietly decided that, well, dear old Rickie didn't really mean it, he was just venting his frustrations.

I have to question whether or not the MSP's investigation went as deep as his ex-employees who are starting to ask if it's safe to come out of hiding yet.

And then we have the driving force behind all of this within the BPU Board, Duke Anderson.  You may recall my pointing that out to Board President John Waldvogel in my article last week.   Anderson was the most vocal at the previous joint meeting.  He's been quoted by the Daily as their go-to guy on the topic, furthering the impression that he had taken the leadership role for himself.  He certainly has no compunctions about breaking the law, following the ever-popular "better to beg forgiveness" model in his federal antitrust case as Hillsdale Community Health Center's CEO.

Yet he was mostly silent last night, save for a point of contentious clarification on the director search process.  In fact, he's been mysteriously quiet ever since the antitrust suit came to light.

Don't believe for a second that it's for lack of time or desire.  I get the distinct impression that someone somewhere is telling him to get wise and shut the hole under his nose before he incriminates himself any further.

Are you familiar with the Leeroy Jenkins video?

Let me give you a brief description.  It's a viral video of a group playing the online computer game World of Warcraft, in which these players have all teamed up to complete a difficult mission.  Strategies were formed, weapons and rations were handed out according to each player's strengths and weaknesses, and the group was almost ready to set out on their task.

Then came a whooping "LEE-ROOOOOOOOOOOY JEEEEEEEEENKIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINS!"

The player who unleashed the greatest battle cry of all time rushed into the room where the creatures that the group was planning to attack were located, and was promptly slaughtered.  This, of course, caused all the rest of the players to completely lose their minds, rush after him in a disorganized attempt to salvage the mission, and fail miserably.

And after everyone's characters had died and they had all thoroughly condemned Leeroy for his ruinously impulsive act, Leeroy replied with a full mouth, "At least I have chicken."

It is widely considered to be one of the funniest gaming videos in the history of ever.

This has been Duke Anderson's Leeroy Jenkins moment.

Over recent months, we've seen Anderson attempt to assert his own authority within the Board itself and the Board's authority against the City Council.  He made a misguided attempt to rush into battle, and he was shut down not only by the Council that he was attempting to attack, but by his corruption coming back to bite him as the hospital's antitrust case unfolded and he was clearly at the center of it.

In the last few weeks, the rest of the BPU Board attempted to take hold of the situation, and it did not go well for them at all.

As I mentioned last week, Waldvogel seemed to take the lead on the issue in Anderson's silence -- and whether that was his choice or Anderson's, only they can tell you.  But don't take it any other way; there was absolutely a shift of leadership there.  Waldvogel has been the board president all along, so for that shift to occur and put the responsibility back where it should have been this whole time speaks volumes.

New City Manager David Mackie, on his very first day on the job, called the Board's bluff.  He and the Council agreed to review the legal analysis of the Board's authority and, just as everyone on the correct side of this literal and figurative power struggle already knew to be the case, it determined that the Board did not have any further hiring and firing authority than the immediate daily operation of the utilities, that the City Manager -- with the Board's guidance, but not the Board's decision -- had sole hiring and firing authority over the BPU Director position, and that the City Manager's decision is subject to Council approval, not the Board's.

I honestly wish I had been there to see the looks on each of the BPU Board members' faces as they read that analysis yesterday morning.  It had to be the political equivalent of Maury Povich saying, "You ARE the father."

Yes, my desire for schadenfreude must go unfulfilled... but for good reason.

Councilperson Adam Stockford said it best last night when he stated that mistakes were made on both sides of this tiff, and while he made it clear that he in no way regretted voting down Rose's contract, he also went out of his way to apologize for any wrongdoing beyond that point on his part.

I'll add my two cents here and say that I don't believe he has anything to apologize for, but it was a show of good faith from him -- and other members of the Council, as well -- toward the BPU Board, an acknowledgement that communication and cooperation has been lacking between the bodies.  Which it has.

But that show of good faith went unanswered.  Waldvogel's simple response was, and this is a complete and direct quote, "I look forward to working with you in the future."  No apology for failing to take the initiative and ask around the BPU as Sharp had done.  No agreement that communication had been a problem.  Nothing.

The Board members should have admitted their own failures in trusting Rose's word and not asking any questions beyond his stonewalling (which they've even admitted in the past was a problem).  But that didn't happen.  In fact, Waldvogel found that one solitary sentence to be so appropriate to the situation that, when Stockford asked if he wanted to elaborate further, he said it again.

"I look forward to working with you in the future."

In other words: damn it, Leeroy.

Anderson, in his one moment of active participation for the whole night, attempted to correct the Council out of his own misperception.  It seems he thought that the call for transparency in the hiring process was the Council's attempt to subvert the Board's advisory authority, and he defiantly asserted that that was the Board's purview in cooperation with the City Manager.  Mackie reiterated that the process called for he and the BPU Board members to work on the search and bring the suggestions to the Council, who will then vote on them.

Anderson replied "That's correct, but..." and went on to put in his own words what Mackie had just said, finalizing his statement with, "Ultimately it's you who brings the information back to the City Council."

In other words: at least I've got chicken.

Even toward the end of the night, the Board members were defiant.  Bob Batt refused to even acknowledge that such a problem existed!

"I'm a little surprised to hear that there's a perception that there's some kind of animosity between the City Council and the Hillsdale BPU," he said.  "I don't think there is, from my perspective as a BPU member.  We have some disagreements, we're working through them, I think they've been cordial if not back-slapping friendly.  I think we'll continue to look forward to move forward.  I don't consider there [to be] any animosity whatsoever."

He added that he wouldn't speak for everyone on the Board, but all three other present members interrupted him right then and there and whole-heartedly agreed with him.  Just sweep it under the rug and forget about it, eh boys?

That's not going to happen here.

While the Council, City Manager and the Board need to make a full-faith effort to work together in the days, weeks and months ahead, I feel far more confident about the Council and Mackie's willingness to do so than I do about the BPU Board's.  No one needs to be pretending that the last few months simply haven't happened, and I'm already getting the sense from several people on the Council and Administration side that they're not happy with the Board for doing just that.

And if the Good Ol' Boys think that David Mackie is going to be just as easy to push over as Doug Terry was, I'd encourage them to take a look at what has happened just in the single week he's had the job!

• He believed that the legal analysis that the BPU ordered behind the Council's back was going to go in the Council's favor, so he suggested that they reverse their decision to ignore it.  He was right.
• He suggested a joint meeting to discuss that and moving forward with the BPU Director search.  That's what we just had last night.
• He stood up to a wrongfully defiant Duke Anderson and essentially sent the message, "quit trying to take charge here; I know what I'm doing."

The guy is quickly proving he's not an insider and he's not going to take their crap.  Quite literally, in this case.

Frankly, the next step is to remove Duke Anderson from the Board of Public Utilities.  His conflicts of interest abound, not the least of which being that he's Mayor Sessions' boss at the hospital.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not charging Sessions with any sort of conspiracy there, but I'm pointing out that the connection is seriously concerning.  If the City Council votes to remove Anderson -- or even to reject a Board suggestion that had been championed by Anderson -- how can we expect Sessions to contradict his employer?  God forbid he cast the deciding vote!

Anderson has proven that he has no regrets about anything that he's done wrong and no qualms about continuing his behavior -- both on the BPU Board and at HCHC.  One has to wonder how long he'll continue in either of those positions, but the one we have control over is his seat on the Board of Public Utilities.

It's time we remove him from it.

The Time For Privatization Has Come

Every time I've said this in the past six weeks, something new has come up, so let's see what happens this time:

Never let it be said that nothing ever happens in this town.

...any new scandals break in the few seconds since I typed that?

Seriously, if the Good Ol' Boys had set a goal to keep me on my toes this week, they're succeeding.  Not that they're pushing me to my limit -- far from it -- but there's so much to cover in this space right now that you'd think we're approaching critical mass of corruption and incompetence in local government.

Well, you know, now that I think about it...

• BPU Director Rick Rose was "suspended" just days before his unrenewed contract expired... because he threatened to get a gun and kill the four council members who voted against renewing his contract.  In front of a BPU employee meeting.  With plenty of witnesses.  And this is the guy who, in that very unrenewed contract, was given a glowing review in which he was praised for his "character" and how "professional" he supposedly is.  Given that the language was written by Interim City Manager Doug Terry and City Attorney Lew Loren with input from the BPU Board, it is absolutely infuriating to look back at that assessment in contrast to what has come out in the time since.  This is the professional character that Terry, Loren and the BPU Board members admire so much?  What does that say about their character and professionalism?
   
• That "suspension" was originally an outright termination for cause.  Sources tell me that Terry changed his tune after he had informed the City Council of the termination, and that preferential treatment of Rose is very much thought to be the reason for it.  Yes, Rickie J. Rose threatened to murder City Council members, and he was merely "suspended" after it was announced that he had been fired.  Can you think of any other motivations for that change?  Because I certainly can't.
   
• Hillsdale Community Health Center was named in -- and almost immediately settled out of -- a federal antitrust lawsuit brought by the Justice Department and State Attorney General Bill Schuette.  Community Health Center of Branch County, Allegiance Health up in Jackson and ProMedica Health System in Toledo, Adrian and Tecumseh were also named in the suit, but according to the Hillsdale Daily News, the suit "lays much of the blame on HCHC administrator Duke Anderson as the one who 'orchestrated agreements to limit marketing of competing healthcare services,' which is an anti-trust unreasonable restraint of trade."
   
• Anderson, as a member of the Board of Public Utilities, has also been behind the push to keep Rose on as director and seemed to play the lead role in the Board hiring an independent attorney -- which the City Council abruptly shut down, as the BPU Board does not have that authority.  This and Anderson's involvement on other local governing boards has all raised many questions about conflicts of interest that go well beyond simple "gentlemen's agreements."
   
• Oh, and by the way; that lawyer the BPU hired to find a loophole in the Council's authority over them?  That's going to hurt the Board more than help them.  You watch.  They're not going to like what's coming.

That all of this ties together through Duke Anderson -- though, let's not kid ourselves, he's far from being the only guilty party -- shows just how much power one corrupt person can accumulate in this community when we aren't paying attention.  Trust me, it is no coincidence that these events have only occurred since you and I turned our attention to local affairs again.  The Good Ol' Boys were betting on us not looking in their direction, and they've lost that bet.

And then we have the failure of The Great Litchfield Municipal Power Experiment.

The Michigan South Central Power Agency has, essentially, collapsed in on itself, forcing them to shut down the 55 megawatt coal-fired Endicott Generating Station in Litchfield, their largest production plant, next year.

Sure, you might blame the once-impending EPA regulations that the Supreme Court just overturned and are no longer a factor (and let me be the first to double-sarcastically say "thanks, Obama!").  But truth is, this is a municipal power consortium operating a small plant that just isn't worth the hassle anymore, and municipal power isn't viable to begin with.  Word has it that the books are a disaster.  That it's lasted this long -- since 1982 -- is only a result of stubborn refusal to admit failure.

So I take it back.  We're not approaching critical mass.  We're there.

Last night, a special meeting was held at the BPU between Hillsdale Mayor Scott Sessions, Councilperson Adam Stockford, Doug Terry and MSCPA General Manager Glen White.  I'll have further details on that in a later piece, but the basics should be pretty obvious.  We're all fairly familiar with the power generation technology out there and the scale to be considered.  We don't want to do anything off-the-wall crazy and, say, build solar roadways across the county -- though I do admit, that would be pretty awesome.  Expensive, as-yet unproven, and entirely impractical on a local meteorological basis... but awesome.

No, in the grand scheme of things, we've got three options available to us.

Option A -- and this was discussed at the meeting -- we can go back to local power generation... which is just as unviable as the MSCPA was.  That was why the consortium was formed in the first place and why it failed: government owned-and-operated utilities do not generate enough revenue to work.  They simply don't.  That has been proven repeatedly.

Option B -- also discussed at the meeting -- we shift sources around.  Not all of our power is coming from Endicott.  According to Stockford, the Litchfield plant currently accounts for 41% of the city's electrical generation.  The remaining 59% comes from several sources: 29% from American Municipal Power (AMP) at their Fremont Energy Center (AFEC) in Fremont, Ohio; 22% from various hydroelectric plants mostly co-owned with AMP; and 8% from other sources in the market.  The plan Stockford says is most likely to be considered is to increase the amount from AFEC to 35%, 26% from hydroelectric plants, and the remaining 39% from the market and/or some other source or sources yet to be named.

Option C -- and this is what we need to be considering -- we simply privatize.  Sell off the equipment and contract with a private company.  I'm sure Consumers Energy would be glad to step in.

Option C would also give us the opportunity to do the same with the waterworks side of the BPU which, in all honesty, is a complete disaster.  It's not just the ancient and inadequate pipes that we have to replace every time we repair a road or one of them breaks -- with no money to do so.  It's that the utility is so environmentally unsound right now that the regulators have just about had it with us.  Which, again, we can thank Rick Rose's mismanagement for.  Why should we spend piles of money that we don't have to make the necessary repairs when we can take the short-term financial hit and benefit from contracting with someone who is capable of stepping in and doing the job?  The prudent choice is pretty clear.

We always complain about the streets in this city.  Think of the money privatization would free up to do something about them.  Indianapolis did it.  And while we're not quite on the same scale as Indiana's largest city, if there's a chance that we here in Hillsdale can free up some capital by selling off our municipal utilities, we need to seriously look into it, especially if that money can be applied to the one recurring complaint that everyone in this city can agree on.

Don't get me wrong: I'm under no illusions that everyone would just jump on board with the idea.  Of course, the Good Ol' Boys hate it.  Kevin Shirk -- who, keep in mind, was Lew Loren's partner -- was asked by the City Council to research the idea, and he came back with the answer that it was "unrealistic."  I wouldn't expect any different from their side.

On top of that, we're talking about local jobs that local people fill.  Those are hard to come by these days, and suggesting anything that might eliminate some of them isn't exactly going to be the popular thing to do.  But I'm willing to live with being unpopular.  I've been through that phase before.  It was called junior high school.

And I'm not the only one.  There are others out there floating the idea.  When the jobs come at the ever-increasing expense of the taxpayer and they're not making economic sense in the long run, something has to give.  We can't just keep throwing money at the problem because... well, we don't have any money.  It would take a three-fifths majority in a ballot referendum, but it's doable.

Besides, this whole municipal utility business has been one of the biggest (and growing) sources of corruption and controversy in the past six months.  If we sell it and contract with a private company instead, we're not only saving money in the long term, we're eliminating one of the institutions that the Good Ol' Boys rely on to force their will on the public.  Take away their opportunities and you take away their power.

Pun very much intended.

UPDATE: ROSE THREATENED TO MURDER COUNCIL MEMBERS

New details have emerged in what is now the suspension of Board of Public Utilities Director Rick Rose.

On Thursday, June 25th, sources confirmed that Rose had been terminated for cause.  The termination was made known to members of the City Council that day by Interim City Manager Doug Terry, who under the city charter has the sole authority to terminate the Director of the Board of Public Utilities.

However, in a reversal of course the next day, Terry informed council members that after he had discussed the situation with City Attorney Lew Loren, he decided not to terminate Rose, but to instead suspend him.  Terry also informed the Hillsdale Daily News of Rose's suspension, but with no mention of prior intent to terminate him.  Terry declined to offer the cause of Rose's suspension pending investigation.

We now know that cause.  Sources have confirmed that Rick Rose had called an employee meeting at the Board of Public Utilities and verbally threatened to use a gun to murder Hillsdale City Councilpersons Patrick Flannery, Bruce Sharp, Emily Stack-Davis and Adam Stockford, all of whom cast the dissenting votes that resulted in Rose's contract not being renewed.

The Michigan State Police, as of this writing, are still investigating.

We'll bring you more as the story continues to unfold.

BREAKING: BPU'S ROSE FIRED

Hillsdale Board of Public Utilities Director Rickie J. Rose has been terminated for cause.

According to sources knowledgeable about the situation, Interim City Manager Doug Terry took the action Thursday afternoon.  The cause for termination is not yet known.

The turn of events comes just days prior to the scheduled ending of Rose's contract with the City of Hillsdale.  At May 18th's regular meeting, the City Council rejected a proposed new contract for Rose on a split vote of 4-4.  That vote ensured the ending of his employment at the termination of his current contract, which the city administration says is June 30th.

Rose's employment has recently been a point of contention both amongst the city's citizens and within City Hall.  After he was arrested and charged under Michigan's "super drunk" law earlier this year -- his third arrest and second charge for operating while intoxicated -- many questioned his suitability as the leader of a city department and utility company.  Additional concerns about his leadership on various issues internal to the Board of Public Utilities were amplified in the wake.

On June 8th, the Board of Public Utilities held a special meeting at which they hired their own independent lawyer to determine where authority over the utility company fell to the Board itself as opposed to the City Council.  Several councilpersons, at the Council's following regular meeting on the 16th, raised concerns that the BPU directors had overstepped their bounds.  Questions about the Board's motivations, particularly questioning their relation to Rose's employment, were also raised by members of the Facebook group Hillsdale's Hot Debates.

A special meeting between the Hillsdale City Council and the Directors of the Board of Public Utilities to discuss these issues has been called for, but not yet scheduled, and determinations made by the independent counsel have been placed on hold indefinitely.

We'll keep you up to date as more details become available.

Council Asserted Their Authority, And It Was Glorious

I'm speechless.

Okay, yeah, you and I both know that's a lie.

But I am left sitting here trying to rack my brain for anything left to say that wasn't said by the Hillsdale City Council at Monday night's meeting.  Several of the council members -- particularly Adam Stockford, Patrick Flannery, Emily Stack-Davis and Bruce Sharp -- not only stood up for what was right, they put the city administration back in their places for the first time in... well, probably as long as any of us can remember.

See, here's the thing: Hillsdale's city government is a council-manager setup with a weak mayor.  That's not an insult to Scott Sessions, that's the actual terminology.  It means that the mayor -- while being the president of the council and an elected, at-large voting member of the council -- is not the chief executive officer of the city.  That duty falls to the city manager, an appointed position, hired by the council to perform his job at their direction.

Such council authority is also in place over the city attorney and, aside from the fact that they're elected positions (for now), the city clerk and treasurer, as well.

Collectively, these offices are referred to as "the city administration."  They are responsible for the day-to-day operation of the city's government, but they do so under the directives and oversight of the City Council... at least within the scope of their office as according to the city charter, city code and state law.  If the scope of the office and the law -- or additionally, as in this case, advice from the state -- contradicts what the council wants them to do, it is their responsibility to clearly explain the situation to the city council.

That has not been happening.  Certainly not recently, and perhaps for quite a long time that we're only marginally aware of.

Let's start with the issue of soon-to-be-former (and I'm relieved that we can now officially say that) BPU Director Rick Rose and the rush to resubmit an adjusted version of his proposed contract renewal.

We knew it was coming.  Interim City Manager Doug Terry had at the very least implied his intent just seconds after the first vote shot the original version down, and he later made it explicitly clear that he wanted a new version that might sway the "no"-voting councilpersons.  This was not exactly a surprise.

However, it hadn't been on the agenda for Monday night's meeting, and consequently, not even Rose himself, by Terry's own admission, had been informed that it had even been written.  Terry wrote the new language to alter the contract just that day, as he told the council, and that being the case, only City Attorney Lew Loren and unnamed employees at the BPU were aware of its existence.

This did not please City Council.

Since none of them had any time to actually review it -- and it certainly wasn't presented to the public for review -- even those who were in favor of continuing Rose's employment found reasons to object.  Councilperson Brian Watkins and Mayor Sessions both weren't happy about the fact that it still, essentially, amounted to a three-year contract, which was the stated reason for the alteration.

Terry clarified that, yes, it was still three years, but it could be terminated at any time; an explanation which seemed to satisfy Sessions and Watkins.

Flannery, however, was on the freakin' ball.  He brought everything with him: the city charter, the council rules, and the calm but stern attitude necessary to enforce them both.  When he told Terry that this matter could not be moved to a vote unless the motion was made by a proponent of the prevailing side, Terry took every approach he could think of to weasel his will through anyway, but Flannery metaphorically slapped him across the face like a parent would an insolent child.

When the councilperson said he wished we'd had a school teacher there to explain the meanings of words, Terry's face was just about three shades lighter than "tomato," and on a personal note, I probably looked like I was having a seizure right there in the gallery, because I was trying that hard to hold in an outburst of uproarious laughter!

Stockford's stand on the August election issue was just as impressive.  He had the same necessary stern and authoritative attitude in the face of LewLo's protestations.  There was no excuse for him not to have brought any of this to the council's attention.  None at all.  And Stockford made that absolutely clear.  The only thing that wasn't said but was blatantly obvious was that, once again, this was not an accidental omission on Loren's part, it was obviously intentional.

Loren, for his part, didn't appear to be as shaken about it as Terry was about the contract vote, but he should have been.  He snuck one past council this time.  In the future... well, let's just say, there'd better not be such a future occurrence.

Tying this back in to Thursday night's illegal special meeting: Doug Terry wants to talk about the spirit of the law?  Let's talk about our current city clerk and city attorney's relationship and Section 5.13 of the Hillsdale City Charter.

Because, again, you cannot ignore the fact that Michelle Loren is Lew Loren's daughter.  I've said it before and I'll say it again: he was the city attorney first, therefore she never should have gotten that appointment when Robilyn Swisher resigned.  That never should have happened.

And yet, here's the situation as it stands:

1. We just had a special meeting between the BPU and the City Council on Thursday night that was made illegal and invalid under the Open Meetings Act because Michelle Loren (I allege) willfully and maliciously refrained from posting the proper public notice on the city web site by the required deadline, then fraudulently backdated it when she did post it well after the deadline had passed.
2. Lew Loren was conveniently on vacation Thursday, so not only was he not present for the meeting, he failed to inform anyone of the violation and crime that his daughter (again, allegedly) committed.
3. Lew Loren, claiming the advice of an assistant attorney general as his basis, unilaterally changed the date of ballot language that would change the city clerk (and treasurer) from being an elected office to an appointed position, and did so without informing the city council ahead of their vote that the date had been changed when the specific directive given to him by the council was that this language was to go on the November ballot.
4. The August election date is set aside as a primary under a combination of language from both the city charter, city code, and state election law.  That being the case, as Stockford pointed out Monday night, according to city charter Section 3.12:

"If, upon the expiration of the time for filing nomination petitions for any elective City office, valid petitions have been filed for no more than twice the number of candidates for the respective offices to be elected at the following regular City elections, then no primary shall be held with respect to such offices."

We have only one candidate on the ballot for the seven seats needing to be filled. That is not enough to trigger a primary, which means that there SHOULD NOT be an August election at all.

5. Lew Loren, despite having this fact pointed out to him by Adam Stockford at Monday night's meeting, actually took the Hillary Clinton route and, quite literally, said "What difference does it make?"
6. Conventional wisdom says that August is typically a very low-turnout election, especially in an off-year like this, so it can only be assumed that the proponents of these ballot proposals are counting on that low turnout for success.
7. It stands to reason that if the office becomes appointed, the most logical choice of person to occupy it would be the person who does so now.

Given all of this information combined, the idea that there is a conspiracy here between father and daughter to perpetuate at least Michelle's power is becoming harder and harder to deny.  In fact, the case to be made is really rather damning.

But the good news is that they know we're on to them.  There are quite a few people involved here who have been watching both this blog and the conversation at Hillsdale's Hot Debates.

Emily Stack-Davis, in discussing this situation Monday night, made a point to her fellow councilpersons that seemed the opposite of the conventional wisdom I mentioned above, but really, it wasn't.  What she was trying to tell the proponents (and yes, I know the definition of the word) of these ballot initiatives is that yes, the citizens ARE paying attention, and this is going to fail if you keep it in the low-turnout August election, because they will come out just to tell you "no" for the second time.

The way I see it, there were two reasons why the council didn't take any further action on it that night.

One, they realized that they were partially responsible on the grounds that all of them failed to read through the entire language and, thus, voted to approve a date that they had never intended to approve.  They know they screwed up, and they're taking their lumps.  I don't particularly like that mentality or the fact that they've adopted it, but that's what I believe is happening right now.

Two, they realize that Stack-Davis was right: we are going to show up in August, and we are going to roundly reject this bunkum.  Or at least that's what I'm hoping for.  You need to help make that hope a reality.

That said, the fact that Stockford and Flannery stood firm and boldly against a city administration that's been used to getting its way says to me that the City Council isn't going to be so lax in the future, and the administration is going to have to shape up, as well, because they will be held accountable.

This is what happens when you get involved.  You and I, we set this ball in motion by paying attention, informing the public and getting people motivated to act.  I believe that the council has taken our discussions here and on Hot Debates as a sign that they have the public support necessary to take the control of the situation that they never should have given up in the first place.

And that means we're not done yet.  The race has just begun.  We're not here to harp on a couple of city employees.  We're here to set the course straight.  We're here to ensure that the law is obeyed, and that those who circumvent or outright disobey it -- especially those who do so intentionally -- will face the consequences.  There is no other way to keep this city's government or any government honest and properly functional.

Like I've said before, I don't want to be the leader of this army.  I'm more of a trumpeter at the front line.  But sometimes the trumpeter plays back to the troops to boost morale, and this is one of those times.  What happened Monday night was amazing.  It is absolutely something to take pride in, because YOU helped make it happen.  So let's rally ourselves, refresh our spirits in the knowledge that we are making the difference we sought out to make, and let's march on.

When all is said and done, the world must know that we here in Hillsdale take our city motto very seriously.

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.

Shocked Into Silence

"Fails!"

That's the only word I can make out in City Clerk Michelle Loren's conclusion of the vote, and trust me, it wasn't just because of the loud air conditioner in the council chambers.  I was in the room, I saw it all unfold.  She was literally so stunned by the turn of events at the end of Monday night's city council meeting that she seemed almost afraid to say it.

It was a come-to-Jesus moment for the good ol' boys.

You see, by a dead-even vote of four to four, the Hillsdale City Council voted down the new, ill-conceived, horrendously written contract for Rick Rose.  Councilpersons Emily Stack-Davis, Patrick Flannery, Adam Stockford and Bruce Sharp all voted against.

And the tension was palpable.

From the moment Interim City Manager Doug Terry took the podium before the vote and began to make his grand overture to the council about why we need Rose in that position and his troubles with alcohol and the law shouldn't be a factor in his employment with the city (more on that later), it was very clear that he knew this was an uphill battle.  The explanations were more pleas than anything else; the begging of a man desperate for the council to end his employment with the city on a good note rather than the downer of terminating a long-time Director of Public Utilities.

What really seemed to ruin the tone of the whole thing was that Terry appeared to be attempting to triangulate, to read the mood of the council as he went, looking for something positive that they would latch on to so that he could stick there and focus on it.  But that thing never came along, and as a result, he meandered and never really made a solid, cohesive point.  He may not be a "spring chicken" (his words, not mine), but this seemed new territory for him, and he wasn't finding his way very well.

It didn't come without its contentious moments, either, and knowing that I was sitting in the room, he made plenty of effort to justify actions, again cast "social media" in a negative light and insist that he only had the best of intentions for all of us and the City of Hillsdale... all of that in a frustrated, defensive tone.

Now, to be fair, I might feel the urge to get a little frustrated and defensive if my motivations were being called into question.

Oh, wait!  They have been!

And yes, there are certainly times when I feel frustrated.  I can get a little defensive at times, too.  But the key to dealing with those situations is A: reminding yourself that you're in this for the right reasons, and B: doing what you know is right in moving forward no matter what anyone else says.

Terry, I think, to some extent, sees what I see.  He comes at it from a different angle.  He believes that what he's doing is for the best.  Even though we're diametrically opposed in many ways, I think, based on some of his comments Monday night, that he realizes he's been tugged by the various factions at City Hall in some directions which weren't the best.  I won't fault him for that much; it's all too easy to step into an already volatile situation and be manipulated by the people who were already there.

But there's still a very major problem with how he's handled the significant backlash that's come as a result of these problems finally being called to the public's attention -- and it wasn't just him; it was a variety of people inside and outside the city government.  It is this pervasive idea among the old guard that the Internet should not be used as a place for political discourse, especially at the local level.

Amusingly, Bruce Sharp -- whom I criticized before for scolding you and I on this matter from his seat at the table -- had nothing to say about it at this meeting.

There's a larger problem at play, though.  See, we are a small town, and there's this idea that's been around for a long time that you don't go negative in small-town politics.  It's the idea that, even if you vehemently disagree, you should always cast things in a positive light, because since this is a small town, the people on the city council are residents, business owners and community leaders who just want what's best for everyone, and that's no reason to be rude.

It's time to throw that idea out the window.

I had a good talk with a few people not long ago who described the very situation that leads me to that conclusion.  One of the participants in this conversation made note of the fact that back in the days when city council meetings were still on the cable access channel (ah, the memories), they remembered that the council was truly made up of civic leaders; business owners, longtime residents well-known for their community involvement, people you knew and trusted to put the best interests of the city ahead of their own desires and ideology.

I'm not saying that the current council members don't have the right intentions, but you don't see that kind of community leadership anymore.  You don't see the owner of a downtown shop representing their ward.  You don't see a mayor who volunteers at the local charities.  You don't see a councilman who has spent years on various other boards, not because they're a career politician but because they care about the community.  And that's not to say that any of our present councilpersons are lacking in those regards, but is that how you think of them?  Is that how they present themselves?

The situation in this city has changed.

We don't have civic statesmen anymore, we have council members.  We have a mayor.  We have a city manager.  We have a city government that exists to do what we tell it to do... if and when we care so much as to tell it what to do.

The days of simply electing a council and leaving it all up to them are long gone.

Now, I'm not saying this because I want to be negative.  I don't want to be negative.  I'd love to be able to go to every city council meeting and report to you that everything is all hunky-dory and that we shouldn't have a care in the world.

But this isn't The Truman Show.

Fact is, there's a lot going on in our city government that needs, at best, closer attention, and at worst, serious housecleaning.  The council just took steps Monday night that were encouraging, but they're far from the goal.  We have to stay alert and we have to get involved.  And things aren't always going to be nice.  Things could get downright ugly.  People aren't going to like the mean tone that we'll sometimes need to take.

But that's the price we all have to pay for being this apathetic for this long.

The fallout of this council meeting could get interesting.  Rose, himself, was in the gallery (just in front and three seats to the right of me, in fact), and while I wouldn't quite call what he did "storming out," he sure left in a hurry.  Some people even brought up the question to me of whether or not he would even show up for work in the morning, because, hey, why bother, right?  Though there's another possibility I'm afraid of: that he'll call his lawyer.

Remember that little issue of legalese in his contract that violates the ADA unless it's in everyone else's contract, too?

Here's my worry: Terry made his case for Rose's continued employment based upon the argument that his problems with alcohol have not affected his job performance and that they should, therefore, not be a consideration in light of his years of service to the BPU and the city.  Emily Stack-Davis was really the only councilperson voting "no" who described her reasons for doing so, stating that she disagreed that this was the right leadership move.  Pressed further, she mentioned a few BPU issues that don't reflect particularly well on Rose, but nobody else gave those issues or anything else in their objections.  Flannery, Stockford and Sharp all used the phrase "I disagree," and what were they disagreeing with other than Terry's assessment that Rose's positives outweighed his negatives?

Where that puts us into dangerous territory is the contract language.  The entire purpose of rewriting the contract was to add these provisions based upon Rose's recent DWI.  Obviously, it's that DWI that prompted the objections, otherwise those voting "no" would likely have stated BPU-related reasons as Stack-Davis did.  Since Rose's contract was voted down on the basis of what the ADA considers his disability (alcoholism), that may well give him grounds to sue the city for employment discrimination.  I don't know that for certain -- I'm not a lawyer, despite my mother encouraging me to become one every time I got into trouble as a child -- but I've read enough on the topic that it worries me.

And the sad fact of the matter is that I can't seem to shake this feeling that it was intended that way all along.  Of course, I don't know that for a fact, either, but when I get gut feelings like this, it's very rare that I'm wrong.

We'll see about that Thursday night, the 28th at 7:00 PM.  I'll give Terry credit where it's due: he... shall we say, suggested to the council after the vote that they schedule a meeting with the BPU board to discuss how to move forward.  Because it didn't appear that the council had any ideas about where to go from here.  And while he suggested to them that a new contract could be drawn up for Rose -- which I would strongly oppose, and I get the sense that the "no" voters would, as well -- he gets points for making it clear that, hey, we just fired our BPU director.  The council didn't seem to realize that.  Or, maybe moreso, they did.

That would explain the shocked silence which filled the room.

The Bloom Is Off of Rose

I have to wonder why the packet for Monday night's city council meeting wasn't posted on the city web site until Thursday evening when the city policy, by council request (and possibly resolution, though I can't confirm that at the moment), is to post it on Wednesday.

I have to wonder if it has something to do with the fact that this week's council packet includes a renewal of super-drunk BPU director Rick Rose's contract.

I have to wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that the good ol' boys are monitoring both this blog and Hillsdale's Hot Debates and took notice of the fact that I normally publish on Wednesdays.

Hey there, fellas!  Here's a little clue for you about how the Internet works: I'm not a print outlet, so I can publish at any time that I want.  I don't have to stick to my deadline.  I can publish early.  I can publish late.  I can show up to the city council meeting on Monday night and live blog the whole thing like Aimee England used to do.  Wednesdays are just the self-imposed deadline that I use to motivate myself.  But sometimes I feel moved to write more often than on a weekly basis.  Much like today, as this post demonstrates.

Now, sure, I have no doubt I'm about to hear from at least five or six people that this is all in my head, that there are perfectly rational reasons for why the packet wasn't posted at the proper time, that it has nothing to do with me, and that I really need to get over myself.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh-huh.

Nope.  Sorry.  Don't buy it.

Don't think for a second that I don't know what's going on here.  I know scared tyrants when I see them, and I'm looking at a few in our city government right now.

Interestingly (but not surprisingly) enough, it's not only the delay of the packet's release that begs questions.  Thanks to my crack team of researchers -- not to be confused with a team of crack researchers, which would serve an entirely different purpose -- we've come across some rather telling pieces of text in that BPU Director's contract which give us all kinds of material for Monday night's public comment sessions.  We're going to work through a lot of legalese here, but stick with me, because this is important.

1. From the Preamble (packet pg. 121): "Hillsdale's current Board of Public Utilities (BPU) has found and determined Rickie J. Rose (Rose) of Hillsdale, Michigan, Hillsdale's Director of Public Utilities (referred to in the Hillsdale City Charter as Superintendent) to be highly competent, eminently qualified, with the skills, education, character and job experience to efficiently and expertly operate and oversee Hillsdale's electric, water and sanitary sewer facilities and services.

Let's forget the fact that Rickie (and I just love calling him that, don't you?) has been known to shout down his employers at city council meetings in the past.  Let's instead focus on the fact that, just last month, he spent 24 days in the Hillsdale County Jail for driving into a tree with a blood alcohol content of .23, which is just shy of three times the legal limit and considered "super drunk" under Michigan law.  Let's also recall that Judge Sara Lisznyai, in her sentencing of Rickie, said directly to him, and I quote, "You do have a drinking problem."  Let's keep in mind that, in crafting the sentence, Judge Lisznyai took into consideration the fact that Rickie had three prior run-ins (if you'll pardon the expression) with the law: a DWI in 2003, reckless driving in 2005, and disorderly conduct in 2014.

With all of these things taken into consideration, is this really the kind of "character" that the BPU board considers suitable for a man who runs a power and waterworks company?

A man who oversees the electrical distribution for the entire city of Hillsdale and several surrounding townships and villages?

A man who oversees the operation of highly powerful and potentially deadly machinery?

A man in charge of making safety-related judgment calls on a daily basis?

This is the kind of man you choose to entrust the lives of your employees to?

In the private sector, Rickie here would have already been fired, and any talk of negotiating a new contract with him would have been laughed right out of the boardroom.  But this is all perfectly acceptable to the good ol' boys in Hillsdale's city government.

2. Also from the Preamble (packet pgs. 121 & 122): "Rose is desirous of continuing in the position of Hillsdale's Director of Public Utilities on the terms and conditions hereinafter provided.  Rose represents himself to Hillsdale and its BPU as having, possessing, and fully utilizing the necessary skills, education, character and job experience necessary to assume, continue and faithfully discharge the duties of the Director of Public Utilities for Hillsdale in a professional and competent manner for Hillsdale's and its BPU's benefit and for the benefit of the general public in Hillsdale and the greater Hillsdale area., all as demonstrated by and through his past service to Hillsdale and its BPU."

Oh, well then!  I suppose that just erases all that's gone on in the past couple of months!  He promises to be good, you guys!  We should just forgive and forget!

(For those of you who are unable to detect snark, the above paragraph was drenched in it.)

Also, just because I can be a real jerk sometimes, "having" and "possessing" are the same thing in this sense.  In fact, merriam-webster.com defines the word "have" as "to hold or maintain as a possession, privilege, or entitlement."  See?  It even uses the word "possession" right in the definition.  And the definition of "possess" is "to have as an attribute, knowledge, or skill."  See?  It even uses the word "have" right in the definition.  Using both "have" and "possess" consecutively in a sentence to make what you're writing sound official is both repetitive and redundant.

(There was also some snark in that last sentence, too, as well.)

(And in that one.)

Oh, and there's a period prior to a comma after "greater Hillsdale area."  That was no typo in my transcription; it's in the actual contract that way.  You might say I'm just nitpicking to be vindictive now.  You'd be right, and I really don't care.  Like I said, I can be a real jerk sometimes.

3. From Section 2, subparagraph A (packet pg. 123): "The Board agrees to employ Rose as Director of Public Utilities for the term of three (3) years from July 1, 2015, to and including July 30, 2018."
   And from Section 3, subparagraph A (packet pg. 124): "During the continuance of this agreement, Hillsdale's Board shall pay Rose a basic salary in such amount as it, from time to time, determines to be commensurate with Rose's skill, training and experience after survey of pay levels for like work at similar utilities in the State of Michigan, as well as those providing utility services in or near the BPU service area."

That's very interesting, because according to this Hillsdale Daily News article from August 17th, 2013, Rickie made himself a deal with the BPU board two years ago that was to freeze his salary at $85,000 per year for a period of five years with a one-time bonus of $15,000 in lieu of any future raises, and because that was merely an extension of his three-year contract from 2010, it's stated in the article that the matter didn't need to go before the Hillsdale City Council.

Now, I'm no math whiz; I'll be the first to tell you that.  But I am proficient enough with basic addition and subtraction to know that 2013 plus five is 2018.  If that 2013 extension to the 2010 contract is still in place, why is his contract coming before the city council?  Did they request this of the BPU board to give themselves an opportunity to let him go?

Good question, and it brings us to point number...

4. From Section 2, subparagraph C (packet pg. 123): "[...] it is specifically agreed and understood between the parties that Rose's employment with Hillsdale is 'at will' and, in addition to the termination procedure provided in the preceeding subparagraph A of this section 2, may also be terminated by either party, with or without cause, for any reason not prohibited by law or for no reason at all [...]"
   And from Section 3, subparagraph A (packet pg. 124): "The compensation rate shall not be less than is in effect at the date this agreement is signed and shall be certified to Hillsdale's Treasurer and shall be paid in equal bi-weekly payments." [emphasis theirs]

Ah!  Very interesting!  But also stupid!  Just to make sure we've got this right, let's read Section 3, subparagraph A in whole, shall we?

"During the continuance of this agreement, Hillsdale's Board shall pay Rose a basic salary in such amount as it, from time to time, determines to be commensurate with Rose's skill, training and experience after survey of pay levels for like work at similar utilities in the State of Michigan, as well as those providing utility services in or near the BPU service area.  The compensation rate shall not be less than is in effect at the date this agreement is signed and shall be certified to Hillsdale's Treasurer and shall be paid in equal bi-weekly payments."

You notice how that section says absolutely nothing about what his compensation is to be?  If you hadn't read the Daily News article I linked to above, how would you know that the starting point is $85,000?  And what will that compensation be if it goes above $85,000?  The contract doesn't spell that out at all.

All of which says to me that the city council just tipped their hand.  They're going to wipe Rickie's 2010 contract with the 2013 extension right off the books and give him this contract, which could well include a pay raise.  Or additional bonuses.  Or perhaps both!

Hey, we don't have the money to pave the streets, but a belligerent employee who drives drunk, drives recklessly when he's sober, and conducts himself in a criminal, disorderly manner?  By God, give that man a raise!

Oh, and speaking of driving recklessly, be it while sober or super-drunk...

5. From Section 3, subparagraph I, subsection i (packet pg. 127): "Rose shall, at his sole expense, own and maintain in a good and safe working order, an appropriate automobile for his personal use in the discharge of his duties as Hillsdale's Director of Public Utilities."
   And from Section 3, subparagraph I, subsection iv (packet pg. 127): "Rose shall not operate or use any motor vehicle or other motorized equipment after the consumption of alcohol or a controlled substance within the 10-hour period that immediately precedes any act within the scope of his employment or while within the scope of his employment." [emphasis theirs]
   And from Section 6 (packet pg. 129): "'Cause' as used herein shall include, by way of example, but not limitation, the consumption of alcohol or a controlled substance within the 10-hour period immediately preceding or while within the scope of his employment, acts of dishonesty, fraud, misrepresentation and acts involving moral turpitude." [emphasis theirs]
    

Wow!  That takes some cojones!  "Yeah, sure, we'll continue to employ you.  We trust your character.  We might even give you a raise!  But if you so much as think of going near a bottle..."

Is Rickie's license even active right now?

But beyond the obvious, there's another underlying problem plaguing subsection iv: it's wholly illegal due to the fact that it's an inconsistent application of employment requirements, which is in direct violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

"Wait... alcoholism is a disability?" you might well ask.  Yes, it is.  According to the government's own ADA web site, about two-thirds of the way down the page,

"While a current illegal user of drugs is not protected by the ADA if an employer acts on the basis of such use, a person who currently uses alcohol is not automatically denied protection. An alcoholic is a person with a disability and is protected by the ADA if s/he is qualified to perform the essential functions of the job. An employer may be required to provide an accommodation to an alcoholic. However, an employer can discipline, discharge or deny employment to an alcoholic whose use of alcohol adversely affects job performance or conduct. An employer also may prohibit the use of alcohol in the workplace and can require that employees not be under the influence of alcohol."

Of course, we know from the BPU board's glowing praise of Rickie that he's "eminently qualified," so even though he does, as Judge Lisznyai put it, "have a drinking problem," he's protected by the ADA.

But why does that make this requirement illegal?

Well, to answer that question, let's go to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, who give us not one but two paragraphs to explain that if you're going to make something an employment requirement, it has to be a requirement for all employees.

The first comes from their "Prohibited Practices" page, which states that:

"The law makes it illegal for an employer to make any employment decision because of a person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. That means an employer may not discriminate when it comes to such things as hiring, firing, promotions, and pay. It also means an employer may not discriminate, for example, when granting breaks, approving leave, assigning work stations, or setting any other term or condition of employment - however small."

The second comes from their page entitled "The Americans With Disabilities Act: Applying Performance And Conduct Standards To Employees With Disabilities."  It goes into even more specific detail about exactly this kind of situation, to wit:

"Whether rules are written or not, employers should be careful that all conduct rules are applied consistently and should not single out an employee with a disability for harsher treatment. In addition, because ad hoc rules are just that, ad hoc, an employer may have more difficulty demonstrating that they are job-related and consistent with business necessity."

And in addition to that, the Society for Human Resource Management sums it up this way:

"Enforce a policy for one employee, but not for another—and guess what? Your company will lose the court case every time. Inconsistent enforcement opens the door for the employee’s attorney to allege discrimination, Zandy said."

So in case you haven't gotten the point yet, because City Hall wants to apply this policy to one Rickie J. Rose -- and only Rickie J. Rose -- it is in violation of the ADA, the EEOC would easily win a lawsuit against the city, and guess who'd be paying for it with their tax dollars?  That's right: you and I.

That's even more money that Joe Taxpayer doesn't have, going to yet another unnecessary expense, all thanks to the city's reckless attempt to keep employing a man who has proven he is in no way, shape or form fit for the job.

That's what they were trying to hide from you.

That's why the packet wasn't released on time.

The good ol' boys are nothing more than frightened little dictators, and we're starting to put them in their place.  That's why they're trying to keep you in the dark.

Here's the packet.  And here's another copy of it just in case, for some odd reason, it happens to disappear from the city's own web site at any given time.

Inform yourself.

Take it to the meeting Monday night.

Make your voice heard in the public comment sessions.

Don't back down.