Plan to reduce Washtenaw County commissioner pay lacks support at final meeting of the year
The Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners held its final regular meeting of the year Wednesday night, bidding farewell to four exiting board members.
The board also voted to affirm the 2011 county budget. But commissioners put off an expected discussion on the issue of per diems, travel and mileage reimbursements.
Commissioner Conan Smith, D-Ann Arbor, was planning to bring forward a proposal to reduce commissioner compensation. But commissioners talked privately before the meeting, and a majority weren't in favor of Smith's plan — so he never brought it up.
In an e-mail to the board Wednesday morning, Smith recommended leaving salary and benefits packages untouched, but proposed further limits on the number of meetings for which commissioners are eligible to collect per diems and mileage reimbursements.
As it stands, commissioners can collect $25 per diem payments plus mileage for attending a wide range of meetings. Smith proposed eliminating per diems for Ways and Means Committee meetings, working sessions and administrative briefings — all of which are meetings of the full board.
Smith also called for treating mileage reimbursements in a new way, essentially reclassifying them as expenses rather than direct compensation.
Smith said his proposal could have reduced the board's direct compensation by about 9 percent. He called that an important gesture to the public and to county employees who will be on the receiving end of draconian cuts in the next year as the county looks to address a nearly $20 million structural deficit for 2012-13.
Under new rules put in place this year, each commissioner is entitled to spend about $3,500 annually from the board's flex account for travel, mileage and per diems. Smith proposed reducing individual allocations to $1,500 to cover per diems and travel, while moving mileage reimbursements to a separate line item in the budget.
In addition to reducing costs through stricter regulations, he said, it's an issue of fairness since some commissioners have 30-mile roundtrips to meetings and others have much less.
Only six of the 11 commissioners have gone over $1,500 in their flex account spending this year, including mileage reimbursements, county records show.
Commissioner Leah Gunn, D-Ann Arbor, whose proposal last month to get rid of per diems and travel was defeated, offered her take on Smith's proposal after Wednesday's meeting.
"It was inadequate because it didn't get rid of per diems, and that's what we need to do," she said, noting her flex account spending was zero last year and will be zero again in 2011.
Washtenaw County Commissioner Conan Smith, D-Ann Arbor, decided not to bring forward a proposal to reduce commissioner pay Wednesday night after it lacked support from fellow board members.
File photo
Commissioners were told by the county's attorney that Wednesday's meeting would be their last chance (absent any special meetings called before the end of December) to address the issue of per diems or commissioner salaries and benefits for the next two years because it's illegal to change a sitting commissioner's compensation mid-term.
Smith said if that's true, it appears the switch to a commissioner flex account system this year may have been illegal.
He noted the new board that starts a two-year term on Jan. 1 still could decide on changes to mileage reimbursements and could opt for voluntary pay cuts.
The issue of commissioner compensation has been a hot topic since it was alleged in October that outgoing Commissioner Mark Ouimet, R-Scio Township, may have improperly billed the county for thousands of dollars worth of per diems and mileage reimbursements.
An investigation by the county clerk's office found almost every single commissioner — except for Ronnie Peterson, who has not billed the county for mileage or per diems — was guilty of collecting some ineligible or questionable payments between 2005 and 2009.
Of the nearly $27,000 in payments that were flagged by the clerk, nearly $17,000 belonged to Ouimet and nearly $5,000 belonged to Jessica Ping, R-Saline. The eight Democratic commissioners averaged $675 apiece.
The county has been working with an accountant and is in the process of deciding what to do about the apparent improper collection of payments.
Local attorney Tom Wieder, who first raised the issue in October, spoke before the board at Wednesday's meeting.
"The main thing is — what are you going to do now?" he said, suggesting a large sum of money needs to be repaid to the county.
Wieder expressed disappointment afterward that the board failed to make further changes to per diem rules and now apparently won't be able to do so for two years.
Commissioner Jeff Irwin, D-Ann Arbor, said Wieder was right to raise concerns before the board. "Hopefully the future boards will go in a different direction with per diems," said Irwin, one of the exiting commissioners.
Smith said he understands some other commissioners' reasoning for not wanting to make changes to their compensation right now. He said he agrees the board needs to look more holistically at the issue and carefully decide whether the overall level of pay and benefits, combined with mileage reimbursements, is right-sized so anyone who wants to be a county commissioner — including residents with low income — can serve in office.
"And that's really, in all honesty, the right outcome orientation," Smith said. "I was approaching it from a desire to cut our compensation knowing that we're going to be asking other people to do the same, which I don't think is necessarily wrong, but it's not really eyes on the prize.
"I hope that the citizens and the staff members here will be understanding that there's a larger issue of our democracy interplaying with the decision," he said.
Smith said he hopes next year, when it's not in an election year and when the county isn't in a transition period, the board can take another look at the issue.
Four retiring board members were honored with special proclamations at Wednesday's meeting. Irwin and Ouimet are headed to the state House of Representatives after winning seats on Nov. 2, while Ken Schwartz and Jessica Ping are moving on elsewhere.
Schwartz, who lost in the Nov. 2 election to Dan Smith, will begin serving on the Washtenaw County Road Commission in January. His appointment was confirmed Wednesday night by a unanimous vote of the board and with praise from Chairman Rolland Sizemore Jr.
Ping, who is being replaced by her sister, Alicia Ping, decided earlier this year not to seek re-election to spend more time with her family.
In addition to Alicia Ping and Dan Smith, both Republicans, the two other commissioners joining the board in January are Yousef Rabhi, D-Ann Arbor, and Rob Turner, R-Chelsea.
The 2011 county budget affirmed unanimously Wednesday night shows projected general fund revenues and expenditures balanced at $98.7 million, which is down only slightly from the $99.2 million budget adopted at the start of the current year.
The budget shows the county dipping $4.8 million into its general fund reserves, lowering it from $15.1 million to $10.3 million. However, the budget includes the planned carry-forward of nearly $5.3 million of surplus from 2010, which was part of the county's two-year budget plan.
The county actually entered 2010 with a fund balance of less than $9.4 million, so that will have gone up over the two years if the county's budget assumptions hold true.
The 2011 budget assumes an 8.5 percent reduction in taxable value. Other revenues were adjusted to reflect current economic trends, including a reduction in district court revenue, clerk online service charges, state liquor and cigarette funding and interest earnings.
The budget shows a total of $2.9 million being allocated to outside agencies, including $1.46 million in human services funding (up slightly from 2010) and $660,000 for special economic development and housing initiatives, including funding for SPARK.
The 2010 apportionment report shows nearly $640 million in property taxes being levied by governmental units across the county, more than $83 million of which goes to fund county government. The largest share — about $190.6 million — goes to fund K-12 education.
Tax bills went out this week.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529.
Comments
Roadman
Wed, Dec 8, 2010 : 1:12 a.m.
Tom, why don't you also file an action for declaratory relief as to the alleged overpayments as well? Assuming you have standing as a taxpayer you could address those as well.
Basic Bob
Sat, Dec 4, 2010 : 9:40 p.m.
@Kristin Judge, I don't have a problem with the commissioners receiving reimbursements for travel expenses for legitimate county business. This has become a thorny political issue because some commissioners charge for these trips while others decline to submit expense reports. I didn't mean to imply that commissioners were sneaking around, only that the OMA unfairly penalizes "incidental contact".
Mick52
Fri, Dec 3, 2010 : 9:44 p.m.
Whoa. This story is getting sinister. Some back pedaling going on. I am not going to read the whole OMA but I did look it up to see when it was written, which was 1976. If the authors knew about email in 1976, they might have kicked around the idea of council members passing emails back and forth in re to policy decisions and if that qualified as open or closed for purposes of the act. Or a way to get around it. Mr. Smith adds this: "I sent an email to the board with my proposal and talked subsequently with enough people (commissioners and nonelected residents) that I was dissuaded from introducing it that evening." So by sending an email you certainly can assert that no group qualifying as a quorum was ever in a room. But it sure looks like a big bending of that rule. Sure sounds to me like Mr Smith did know that his proposal would fail due to his cyber meeting with enough commissioners responses to come to that conclusion. You talk to them all at once behind closed doors or individually in emails, how is that different. Its still hidden from the public. He should have brought it up in the meeting and put it on the record. I think we should add email correspondence to the OMA law if it is not in there already. It should be.
Ryan J. Stanton
Fri, Dec 3, 2010 : 2:45 p.m.
I never got the impression that there was a secret meeting or pre-game huddle of any sort, which would clearly violate the Open Meetings Act. Rather, in talking with a couple of commissioners, including Conan Smith, I got the impression that he received feedback from a number of other commissioners (whether that was via e-mail, in person, by phone, or otherwise I'm not entirely certain, other than I know he sent out an e-mail to the board), and the feedback he received was enough that he realized he didn't have the votes to get his proposal through and didn't bring it up after the meeting started.
Conan Smith
Fri, Dec 3, 2010 : 2:18 p.m.
Just briefly: Ryan got most of this info talking directly to me. I sent an email to the board with my proposal and talked subsequently with enough people (commissioners and nonelected residents) that I was dissuaded from introducing it that evening. If I gave him the impression that their was a meeting, that is my mistake. There was not. It's easy enough to understand: I probably said something like "I met with commissioners before the meeting and found there wasn't enough support." In fact I spoke individually with four or five members. Ryan's focus on the content over the process seems to be the right and.most meaningful approach.
Kristin Judge
Fri, Dec 3, 2010 : 10:50 a.m.
@jcj and Commissioner Smith- Thank you for joining the discussion. No employee group at the county has taken a pay freeze for 10 years other than the commissioners. No employee group has been unable to collect mileage when attending county business meetings other than the commissioners. I travel to Lansing and Detroit at a minimum of 3 times a month for the committee work I do on behalf of the board and currently receive no mileage reimbursement for that. Our employees who attend the same meetings are reimbursed. I am not complaining about my pay and have never heard one of my colleagues complain about it either. I chose to run for office, but I am not ashamed of being compensated for my work. The residents are getting their money worth with the dedication of the 11 Commissioners I have had the honor to serve with. We value our staff so much that our #1 goal in the last budget cycle was to save as many jobs as possible. @Bob- there simply was no "meeting". Individual Commissioners can talk about possible resolutions at any time without breaking any laws.
Basic Bob
Fri, Dec 3, 2010 : 10:23 a.m.
There is a technical difference between salary and reimbursement for expenses. The per diem payments are in the expense category. The commissioners are free to reduce their expenditures in this area just as they are free to reduce any other cost of government. They can do this either individually or as a board, but they should do it. It's a shame that the OMA encourages our elected board to sneak around making sure that a quorum is never reached unless the public is notified in advance. It's also a shame that this act rewards lawyers with public funds, if in fact a quorum is accidentally reached without the required public notice.
Madhatter
Fri, Dec 3, 2010 : 9:49 a.m.
@Kristin Judge I appreciate your response to this article and the comments made. I would like to thank you for providing a copy of the Michigan Open Meetings Act. However, I don't believe your response fully answers the questions asked, and I believe it contains a red herring argument. Answering journalistic questions and avoiding logical fallacies in your response will allow your constituents to draw their own conclusion from unbiased information. The use of journalistic questions is a foundation to defending one's claim or statement. Ms. Judge is attempting to argue that no OMA violations took place with the "talk in private" reported by annarbor.com's Ryan Stanton. In my opinion, not answering all journalistic questions left unanswered questions and doubt. While she provided a link to the OMA, I don't believe she fully demonstrated how the gathering did not violate the provisions of the OMA. Providing a factual rebuttal using journalist questions will provide constituents with unbiased answers to what actually took place, allowing constituents to draw their own conclusion from the answers. Ms. Judge should answer the following questions to defend her argument: Who - Who participated in this unofficial gathering? Who first initiated the informal discussion? What - What was discussed among the commissioners before the official public meeting took place? What was the purpose of the commissioners getting together? What constitutes a quorum? Where Where did the gathering take place? When When did the commissioners get together? Why - Why did the commissioners get together before the meeting? Why did this gathering not violate the OMA? How - How was this gathering called to take place? How does this gathering apply to the OMA? By not giving their full side of the story, the commissioners might lead annarbor.com readers to only believe the information that is being presented to them. The commissioners are public servants, and have a moral obligation to their constituents to defend their actions. Not fully answering these questions could damage their credibility. Ms. Judges response attempts to defend the argument that the OMA was not violated, but then it potentially uses a red herring argument to diffuse the situation. According to educational resources at University of North Carolina (2007), a red herring argument is when the arguer goes off on a tangent, raising a side issue that distracts the audience from what's really at stake. Often, the arguer never returns to the original issue. Ms. Judge articulately tried to defend the actions of the commissioners by explaining how their gathering did not violate the OMA. However, she ends her argument by writing, To see the thousands of dollars that have been cut from the commissioner budget in the past year, visit my website at www.kristinjudge.com and click on My Expenses... It is my opinion that she wrote this ending paragraph to diffuse the topic of the forum away from an OMA violation and to direct the reader to the fact that she has done something good. While I can appreciate her potentially good intentions, the topic of the questions asked was OMA violations, and not about the money she has saved. Therefore, the end of the argument contains a logical fallacy. The purpose of my comments is to not embarrass or attack the commissioners. My purpose is to challenge the commissioners with the information written in this article to get answersa responsible citizens obligation. This annarbor.com article potentially implies that commissioners potentially held a private meeting and killed a proposal to cut commissioner pay. We deserve answers to what really happened. Answering our questions in the annarbor.com comment section is the best way for the commissioners to defend their actions and provide their side of the story. @Conan Smith started a comment to this article by writing, Easy does it... attacking people isn't going to bring clarity or rationality to this issue. I certainly hope he wasnt referring to the questions asked in my initial comment to this story. It is every citizens responsibility to make sure their elected officials are doing whats right. As many are aware, we, the people, are the ones that put them in that chair. They answer to us, and we are entitled to answers when we ask them questions. Asking questions with boldness does not constitute an "attack." References Red Herring. (2007). Fallacies. Retrieved from Writing Lab, University of North Carolina website: http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html
Madhatter
Fri, Dec 3, 2010 : 7:22 a.m.
I encourage annarbor.com to run another article defending it's claim that a private meeting was responsible for this proposal not being brought up. More specifically, I encourage the author to use journalistic questions to support the statement: "Commissioner Conan Smith, D-Ann Arbor, was planning to bring forward a proposal to reduce commissioner compensation. But commissioners talked privately before the meeting, and a majority weren't in favor of Smith's plan so he never brought it up." Who - Who participated in this private meeting? What - What was the purpose of this private meeting? What implications are there for these officials having this private meeting? Where - Where did the private meeting take place? When - When did the private meeting take place? Why - Why did the private meeting take place? Why is this private meeting mentioned in the article? How - How did Mr. Stanton learn about this private meeting? How is this private meeting relevant to this article? How did you know Conan Smith was going to propose this cut in pay? Writing a new article that answers these questions will provide clarification to the questions many have about this private meeting. Without answers to these questions, your statement appears to be opinion only and offers no evidence to me that it is accurate or newsworthy.
jcj
Fri, Dec 3, 2010 : 12:02 a.m.
Mr Smith Thank you for the well thought out answers. I look forward to seeing what the new year brings for all of us.
Conan Smith
Thu, Dec 2, 2010 : 11:51 p.m.
Easy does it... attacking people isn't going to bring clarity or rationality to this issue. Kristin is right: at no time were people clustered talking about this issue. In fact, I didn't even talk to a majority of the board about it individually. There was no violation of the Open Meetings Act in letter or spirit. It is common practice and well understood by the case law that elected officials will talk to each other about their ideas before drafting or raising issues for debate [St. Aubin v Ishpeming City Council, 197 Mich App 100 (1992)]. OMA is designed to ensure that *decisions* are debated and made before the public -- not *non decisions*. In this case, no policy was effectuated (no policy was actually changed), so no "decision" was ever made. Practically and rationally, it wouldn't make sense to have every conceivable idea (no matter how awesome) debated -- governance would bog down even further if we brought every matter to the board that never stood a chance of being approved. I won't speak for Commissioner Judge on her position, but at no time did she indicate to me that she would not support a compensation reduction. She has always shown an open mind and good sensitivity to the concerns of the public. I have yet to see her rule something out out-of-hand. This policy does have to be crafted carefully, and we need to do that dispassionately. This just wasn't the right moment. I know that the board as a whole takes the compensation issue seriously, and I suspect we'll wrangle with the issue next year. I think it's important to recognize that this Board cut their compensation packages by some 16% (a proposal advanced by Kristin and myself and supported unanimously by the current commissioners) when we took office in January 2009. That's far more than any cut we have asked of any employee group. Moreover, the salary for a commissioner hasn't changed since 1999 -- deliberately. If it had only gone up with inflation, the value would be about 33% higher today. Nobody runs for public office for the salary. It does allow people to do the job better, but it isn't ever a primary motivation. For some people, the presence of a salary and benefits package allows them the ability to serve when they would otherwise be excluded because of their financial situation. It seems incumbent on a just society to ensure access for everyone to any position in our democracy. The challenge we face now is deciphering whether that compensation package is appropriately sized and regulated to meet that objective without compromising equity within the organization. Generally speaking, the answer to that question is yes, and the amendments we have been considering -- while they would definitely improve the overall situation -- are fairly minor and would only incrementally enhance the Board's compensation position comparative to peers and colleagues.
jcj
Thu, Dec 2, 2010 : 11:23 p.m.
@David Go back and read my post carefully. I don't think I said I expected them to do it for free. But I would expect them to be willing to make some adjustment in their compensation if they are going to ask everyone else to make an adjustment.
David Briegel
Thu, Dec 2, 2010 : 11:15 p.m.
jcj, Not for free. But then you guys only want the rich to buy their offices.
David Briegel
Thu, Dec 2, 2010 : 11:14 p.m.
jcj, Not for free. But then you guys only want the rich to buy their offices.
jcj
Thu, Dec 2, 2010 : 10:25 p.m.
@ Kristin Judge You have seen fit to defend the meeting of less than a quorum. That's well and good. Although it looks like it is still a way to discuss things without involving the public. OK I will give you that. Now I would have preferred you defend your reason for not supporting the proposed resolution. And why you think its OK for everyone else in county government to be asked to cut back while some commissioners are not willing to do likewise?
Kristin Judge
Thu, Dec 2, 2010 : 9:23 p.m.
"But commissioners talked privately before the meeting, and a majority weren't in favor of Smith's plan so he never brought it up." At no time was there a private conversation of a quorum of the board about this matter or any other matter during the two years I have been on the board. Each of the commissioners takes very seriously the issue of open meetings. Many times we are asked to come in to be educated about budget issues with the administrator. It is always a top priority of everyone in the office to be sure a quorum is never met unless we are in a public meeting. It is regular practice of any board member to talk with individual members to gauge support for a resolution before bringing it from the floor. Absolutely no laws were broken or even bent. I believe in the integrity of this board regardless of the controversy surrounding us in the past few months. If anyone would like to spend a day with me to understand the job better, I would love to show you around. Here is a copy of the law. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/Publications/OpenMtgsFreedom.pdf "(3) All deliberations of a public body constituting a quorum of its members shall take place at a meeting open to the public except as provided in this section and sections 7 and 8." To see the thousands of dollars that have been cut from the commissioner budget in the past year, visit my website at www.kristinjudge.com and click on My Expenses. The Administration and Commissioners were the first to trim their budgets in the last budget cycle, and the county staff stepped up to the plate and gave themselves. We will work as a team again and find the best solution for all the residents of Washtenaw County. When we start the community forums and budget discussions, come share your opinions.
jcj
Thu, Dec 2, 2010 : 7:08 p.m.
@ David Briegel "There sure aren't a lot of people willing to do the work" Think not? There seemed to be plenty on candidates this year. And there certainly would be more if some of the positions weren't filled by those that have been in the community forever. If the slate were wiped clean right now you seriously think there would be no one to offer their services?
jcj
Thu, Dec 2, 2010 : 6:56 p.m.
BTW I am not making light of the amount of time/work these commissioners commit to. BUT how can they with a straight face ask everyone else on the payroll to take a cut when they are not willing to sacrifice? And there are those that would do it for nothing. The problem is that after agreeing to do it for nothing those willing to do it for free would vote themselves a salary!
digger
Thu, Dec 2, 2010 : 5:55 p.m.
I'm guessing but--is the pay why these people wanted this job? I doubt it so how about this being a non paying position so we don't have to be even talking about this. They wouldn't have to put themselves in this position to vote for their pay. What you don't think any one would still run for these positions?
Tom Wieder
Thu, Dec 2, 2010 : 3:09 p.m.
I am an attorney, and I also believe that there may have been a violation of the Open Meetings Act (OMA). I am researching the law on that right now. If anyone is interested in possibly participating in an OMA suit challenging this, let me know - (734) 994-6647 (No fees, the OMA awards them if the challenge is successful. This is a matter of principle and good public policy.) I was the person that first raised the abuse of the per diems publicly before the Board. I had no idea that Conan Smith's proprosal existed and that he had intended to have it discussed last night. Essentially, the Commissioners considered a limit on their own compensation, in private, and "voted" it down, with no record of their "votes." This stinks.
debling
Thu, Dec 2, 2010 : 1:35 p.m.
@Andy Jacobs 100% agree with your statement.
YpsiLivin
Thu, Dec 2, 2010 : 1:29 p.m.
Plan to reduce Washtenaw County commissioner pay lacks support at final meeting of the year Well, as a taxpayer in Washtenaw County, let me say that I support this. Perhaps Mr. Stanton would be kind enough to put up a poll so our commissioners can better determine whether their own positions on the matter truly represent those of their esteemed constituents.
treetowncartel
Thu, Dec 2, 2010 : 12:10 p.m.
@ Bob, I was going to make the same comment about the OMA violation. I believe, but I am not certain, that if there was a qourum of the board present at the private meeting it is a violation. Something similar happened with the the Ypsilanti School Board a few years ago. I do think it is time for Washtenaw County to look towards creating a County Executive position.
treetowncartel
Thu, Dec 2, 2010 : 11:31 a.m.
@ Bob, I was going to make the same comment about the OMA violation. I believe, but I am not certain, that if there was a qourum of the board present at the private meeting it is a violation. Something similar happened with the the Ypsilanti School Board a few years ago. I do think it is time for Washtenaw County to look towards creating a County Executive position.
Mikey2u
Thu, Dec 2, 2010 : 11:16 a.m.
You guys pay yourselves as much as you want. The rest of us will eat cake.
gamebuster
Thu, Dec 2, 2010 : 11:10 a.m.
"2.9 millions being allocated to outside agencies, including $1.46 millions in Human Services Funding" 'Coordinated Funding" passed with concerns. But both County's Corporation Counsel, Curtis Hedger and AA council administrator assured the public that they only voted for the process, "No fund co-mingled". City Councilman Sabra assured that it's illegal to mix with taxpayer's money with private donation from "United Way" and "AA Community Foundation", and she assured "No shared administration" People opposed "Coordinated Funding" as we don't want any "Middle Man" to suck up money from "Human Service Fund". Who is going to pay the huge admin costs for those agents? Government should have been hold responsible in allocating funds, especially the Human Service Fund. "United Way" used over $2 millions in 2009 to pay for admin costs, endowment, retirement plans and business losses. Again, Human Service Fund should not be gone to outside agencies. It's immoral!!
King
Thu, Dec 2, 2010 : 11:07 a.m.
In response to Bob, I am a former township supervisor and yes it does seen to me that the open meetings act was violated here with the statements that were put into print. I would also like make a statement about how Washtenaw county conducts its business. The simple principle of wants and needs have vanished into the wayside. If our current trend of taxation continues we will be traveling the same road as Wayne county. Higher taxation promotes poverty!
David Briegel
Thu, Dec 2, 2010 : 10:52 a.m.
$15,000 is hardly overpaid compared to the amount of time and effort for their time. There sure aren't a lot of people willing to do the work as there are those that would complain about anything and everything. Their budget was cut and tighter controls are in place. And the most abusive individual is no longer there to take advantage. I said nothing about how hard they worked and you said nothing about limiting service to the independently wealthy! How silly! I was always paid for mileage to attend business and training off site or was provided transportation as is the practice at most businesses!
amazonwarrior
Thu, Dec 2, 2010 : 10:17 a.m.
I don't know about anyone else, but I have never been reimbursed for mileage to drive to work, which is essentially what's going on here. Just plain arrogance and greed. Thanks Ryan and please keep us informed.
Madhatter
Thu, Dec 2, 2010 : 10:14 a.m.
According to reporter Ryan Stanton: "Commissioner Conan Smith, D-Ann Arbor, was planning to bring forward a proposal to reduce commissioner compensation. But commissioners talked privately before the meeting, and a majority weren't in favor of Smith's plan so he never brought it up." The Open Meetings Act of Michigan requires that all government business be conducted openly in front of the public. However, the discussion that took place was not conducted in public, the article reads that the commissioners spoke in private, regarding a public matter that was going to be brought up. I am concerned that the commissioners may have participated in an illegal closed session meeting without allowing the public to observe or participate. Even in closed sessions, meetings are to be recorded in minutes--which didn't appear to take place either. Did this interaction in private consititute a closed session meeting that violated the OMA?
cinnabar7071
Thu, Dec 2, 2010 : 10:11 a.m.
I seem to remember most county employees did take a voluntary pay cut last year, well except the sheriff department I remember wouldn't open their contract. This story needs more info
Jenna Thom
Thu, Dec 2, 2010 : 10:01 a.m.
@ David Briegel The point is not whether they are overpaid or underpaid, the point is that they should be sharing the sacrifice. Your statement, as well as some of the commissioner's attitudes, says to me that all the other county employees are not deserving of their salaries and should get a pay cut because they are not worth the money, while the commissioners work hard and should not take a pay cut. The issue here is shared sacrifice, not whether someone works hard and is deserving. Because if that is the message that the commissioners (and you) are sending to the workforce, you might as well say "let them eat cake".
schlomo
Thu, Dec 2, 2010 : 9:11 a.m.
The sheer audacity! Thanks Ryan for keeping us informed. Don't let this story blow over.
David Briegel
Thu, Dec 2, 2010 : 9:06 a.m.
I don't think they are overpaid. Service should not be limited to the independently wealthy. We will save significantly now that Western Washtenaw has "promoted" the worst abuser! We contributed a significant amount to his campaign!
ypsineighbor
Thu, Dec 2, 2010 : 9 a.m.
Ryan - It would be good to know which Commissioners, if any, have re-paid the County for the questionable payments.
jcj
Thu, Dec 2, 2010 : 8:56 a.m.
"Other revenues were adjusted to reflect current economic trends, including a reduction in district court revenue, clerk online service charges, state liquor and cigarette funding and interest earnings." Looks like everything EXCEPT the commissioners compensation was adjusted! "I was approaching it from a desire to cut our compensation knowing that we're going to be asking other people to do the same" Why don't they allow these "other people" to decide their own fate and see how much gets "adjusted"!
MjC
Thu, Dec 2, 2010 : 8:54 a.m.
"But commissioners put off an expected discussion on the issue of per diems, travel and mileage reimbursements" Of course they put it off! And did anyone repay the funds that were tagged improper reimbursements? The taxpayers of A2 need to pay close attention to the people we're electing. Kudos to Conon Smith and Leah Gunn for at least having the guts to try and straighten this mess out.
Soothslayer
Thu, Dec 2, 2010 : 8:46 a.m.
Hello. Why would anyone be allowed to manage their own compensation is beyond me. Where's the incentive to act on anything that may get it in check with the economy?