Monday, January 9, 2012

Lip Service, Page 1

The premise of a representative government is that elected
and appointed officials have as a solitary mission the altruistic
service of the public they are entrusted to serve. And some
governmental units attempt to live up to that promise better
than others. When I had dealings with the Village of Skokie,
Illinois, they offered themselves as “The Village that Cares.”
And in all my dealings with them, they followed through.

Iron River has an undated welcome letter signed by treasurer
Anderson and (former) mayor Zanon on their web page. A
sentence stands out. “Our entire staff is here to serve our local
taxpayers, and you are our first priority.” The attachment that
accompanies the letter explains how tax dollars are spent. It
closes with, “If you have a concern with your property tax bill,
utility bill, or another concern the City may be able to help with,
our office is open to help you solve your concerns.”

This reminds me of the time, when as a young man, I went
Christmas shopping with my father. When we left a store I
mentioned to him that he had been given too much change
by the clerk that rang up his purchase. He insisted on going
back in to set things right. I warned him it wouldn't work.
As soon as he mentioned to the clerk that there was an
error ion his transaction the clerk adamantly denied any
error and refused to listen.

Generally speaking, the City of Iron River elected officials,
appointed officials, and employees, listen. But the ratio of
disappointed public to resolved issues is pathetic, and that's
what has led to this series of articles.

At the November 11, 2007 city council meeting, Nancy
Timbrook of St. John's Church asked the city council to
consider lowering the current penalty structure on water
bills and that 60 days in arrears is too long a time to incur
delinquency, leading to difficulty in receiving assistance from
charitable organizations , as well as the “service charges”
when water is shut off.

See

http://www.ironriver.org/downloads/minutes/2007/11-14-2007-2.pdf

for the results. Mrs. Timbrook's “solution” is typical of how
the city responds to citizen concerns. Mrs. Timbrook asked
the city council to “consider” changes. They flat out refused
because to do so might reduce income in one of the few
methods that the city can do with minimal to no state
oversight. And besides, why wreck a perfect record by actually
accommodating a request?

Fast forward to the 9/21/2011 city council meeting. The
council approved the transfer of an excess amount of money,
in the amount of $150,000, from the “water savings account”
to improve the city's required funding of the MERS (state)
pension fund for city employees.

Three things are salient in this action. First, why was tax
money carelessly spent by the city instead of being paid into
the pension fund as required? I have to wonder how long the
city would have continued avoiding payment of pension funds
if the penalty were 10% per month compounded as the city
charges for delinquent water bills. And second, why did the
city have such an excess amount (actually more then the
$150,000) of money in the water fund while people are
suffering shutoffs because they cannot afford the rates
being charged?

Third, and very very important, why is it that the periodic
auditor's reports that depict a clean slate for the City of Iron
River do not also report excess savings account monies as
well as shortfalls in the funding of employee pensions? The
auditor's report is supposed to be the public's safeguard
against fiscal mismanagement of the city, and clearly what
the public has received as a report has not been thorough
enough to qualify as truthful. The way things are set up, the
auditor can only report on the information received from the
city. It should also be noted that according to the official
record of the 9/21/2011 meeting, the auditor provided
information to the city's legal counsel regarding the legality
of the $150,000 transfer.

Lip service? The dearth of really pertinent information is
clearly designed to lull the taxpaying public into believing
that all is well. However we have some small windows into
the inner workings that say otherwise. What we are getting
is merely lip service. Those who have made the promise to
serve the public haven't been, in my opinion, doing a very
good job of it. What do you think?

So, is the City of Iron River really serving you?

IronCountyDoings would appreciate your feedback. Our
email address is at the top of the page.

Bill Vajk

No comments:

Blog Archive