|
December 2006 Postings
12-31-2006-01
Anyone reading those posts by
Marcus Blomquist, and/or answering them who thinks they are
discussing only with him are missing a very important point.
They are discussing with the mayor. The mayor has a long
history of using others to front for him. I remember at least
three letters to the editor that were signed by his sister, his
brother and his "domestic partner" that were clearly his work.
He even used a woman hardly anybody knew to front his petition
recall drive. Now it's Marcus' turn.
So if you think Marcus is selectively ignoring questions,
answering them totally wrong, or spinning them, you're wrong.
It's the mayor, not Marcus, doing it.
An earlier post suggested that may be happening, and said "God
help us all if it's true." It is true.
It proves how totally out of sync the mayor is with the people.
He couldn't care less what the people think. He is only
interested in his own narrow agenda - there is no amount of
money too large to spend on downtown. To hell with the rest of
the city. Bad roads? So what. Potholes all over town? So
what. Finances in shambles? Dismiss it with "We're in good
shape"
If there is not a wholesale clean out next election, they city
taxpayers will suffer huge increases in fees and other income
generating gimmicks. WAKE UP, TAXPAYERS - unless you enjoy
paying through the nose for a privileged few
12-28-2006-02
I agree it would be informative
to add city contracts to this site as Marcus Blomquist suggested
in a recent post. I would suggest e-mailing this site and
asking the webmaster if he can post scanned sheets. I'm
almost sure he can because there are some items on the
homepage buttons that clearly have been scanned in.
If that's the case, then the
City or Marcus can scan the contracts and send them to the
web-master. We can all be on the same footing when
discussing contracts. With more good information posted
here, I believe the level and depth of the discussions will
upgrade considerably.
12-28-2006-01
The article written by Stephen
Gauthier that Marcus Blomquist posted, which describes some
aspects and general misunderstandings about GASB was
interesting. In effect, GASB will mandate
certain requirements that any competent city, county or
state should have been doing on their own anyway. Very few,
especially smaller cities, were inclined to do it with any
thoroughness.
GASB forces cities to face
reality and, hopefully, fully inform the public as well
as current and retired employees of the true future
financial obligations. These obligations have always been
there.
Iron Mountain had a study done
on future unfunded medical benefit costs for current and
retired employees. The number, as I recall , was stated by
the Daily News, as $13,000,000. That was the only new
number. The liabilities of the pension plans, around
$6,000,000, was already known.
The city negotiated some changes
in the retiree medical plans. I have never read how much
the city is supposed to have saved by these negotiations.
If anyone knows, please post that number.
Understanding you have a problem
is one thing. How you go about solving it is something
else. This is where good versus poor business management
practices begins to show up. The liabilities faced by Iron
Mountain, as was pointed out, are not uncommon. They are
faced from coast to coast by not only by
municipalities large and small, but by the private sector as
well. We have all read of the troubles facing Ford and GM
and their networks of suppliers. The airlines have
been under similar stress as well as many other industries.
So far, I am unimpressed with
Iron Mountain administration and city council efforts. On
one hand, they lay off four firefighters and literally force
two city hall personnel to leave by taking away their
medical benefits. (The police chief, who was in the same
category as the city hall employees, was somehow exempt).
All this in the name of cutting costs. Then they turn
around and create positions that never existed. They hire a
DPW Director at $48,000 plus health and
pension benefits, an Economic Development Director
at $37,500 plus health and pension benefits,
three dispatchers
at the police department and a full time Code
Enforcer. (Code enforcement previously was under
the assessor). In addition, they had to pay bonuses to get
nine police officers to take firefighter training.
All of these new hirees
add to the health and pension costs that has them in a
panic.
The City Manager is a life-long
bureaucrat. He is in the business of building bureaucracy.
The city council, elected to direct city policy, apparently
thinks all this action is fine and gives him a substantial
bump in pay. Any half-way competent business person can see
through this sham.
The city council can't.
Living in a rented house with no
ties to the area, you can be sure he is keeping one foot out
the door. He goes to ICMA (Inernational City Manager
Association) meetings to network for his next job on our
nickel. The problem are there. This City Manager and
council show no sign they are capable of solving them by
their actions so far.
12-27-2006-03
Regarding Marcus
Blomquist's posting 12-26-06-01:
I wish that at least one time Marcus Blomquist would
1.) read accurately what others actually write and
2.) address accurately what others actually write.
I hope readers here are actually reading and comparing clearly what
others are writing and what Marcus Blomquist believes they
are writing or wants them to be writing and claims
they are writing. It's as if they're asking him the time of day and
he's responding by explaining how a wagon works. Personally, I
overestimated him. Beyond being incredibly naive and/or
disingenuous, he's obviously muddleheaded and inarticulate, less
than even middlebrow. Unable to speak to the issues themselves,
he's not worthy of the debate, but rather a distraction from it.
For my part, so
long, Marcus! With this last posting, you've written yourself into
utter irrelevance.
You know the earlier message about you bragging about proudly
signing your name to everything under the sun? The writer of that
message hit the nail right on the head. So what if you sign your
name if everything you sign it to is rubbish? In fact, after
reading your latest ramblings then rereading that person's posting,
everything that he/she wrote about you was right on target. But,
sadly, you haven't a clue, do you?
A più tardi, pagliaccio.
12-27-2006-02
It really burns me when the village
idiot writes in about how great a job the city did with retiree
health insurance. As usual, he leaves out very important details
that don’t back up his spin. In the past, many city employees
who are now retired could not pay into medicare, and cannot
receive that benefit, either. So, a lot more was taken away from
the retirees than it appeared, when you take into account that
they have nothing to fall back on. Not even the government SS
and Medicare benefits that everyone else gets. That’s right - no
social security for city employees. A real fact. No person in
this city ever had "cradle to grave" health insurance,
either. That’s a bald-faced lie. What they did have was legal
and binding contracts that the city coldly, blatantly broke.
What the hell, they can’t very well
fight a legal battle on a fixed income, can they? Let’s stick it
to ‘em."Because we
can." - Councilman Jeff Vanlaanen, on robbing city retirees
and elderly widows of their legally obligated health benefits.
12-27-2006-01
The deer at City Park - a new
current "issue." You know, the manufactured, "feel-good" kind
of issue designed to steer our minds away from the many more
important things that are stacking up. I wonder who our
"heroes" will be, when the polls say save the deer?
This link is to a Daily News letter
to the editor from 12-26-2006:
Is the plight of the deer at City
Park a synopsis of this whole town? Everything getting whittled
away a little at a time, until, almost by surprise, you wake up
one morning and discover that another special something is gone
forever. Only difference here is that the people will
probably be listened to, since their is nothing to gain by
ignoring them.
12-26-2006-01
I'm posting an article I
was given concerning the GASB and OPEB issues frequently written
about on this site. I believe it gives some perspective concerning
what the city has as solutions and options. What strikes me is the
pervasiveness of the problem state and country wide. It'd be good to
see a "solution" based discussion not based on irrational hatred and
mindless attacks. We'll see.
Also quickly to the writer that baits me to meet him/her publicly!
What? I have no problem filling my social calendar. I am in no need
of additional engagements. Again you miss the point entirely: I
don't care who you are personally! You know who I am and I believe
you have had the pleasure of accusing me of all sorts of things
because I know the Mayor. That's fine with me, why don't you do the
same! What could you possible be afraid of?
Also to the second writer, what does being gay have to do with
signing my name when you don't? Are you suggesting that if you sign
your name people might believe you're gay? Trust me becoming a
member of the "club" would probably require a complete wardrobe
change as well as the effective use of irony. I am only a "junior"
gay having not completely mastered the use of a "limp" wrist while
shouting "fabulous" in reference to everything Madonna. My fingers
remain crossed. Remember I'm not in the closet in anyway, I sign
my name and you know I'm gay! COME OUT! It feels much better when
you're honest.
You also continue to describe yourself as vulnerable? How? Who's out
to get you? Of course we have no way of knowing since you refuse to
print your name. It's convenient to make charges when you lurk in
the dark.
Also, my point stands. When people like yourself turn to digging
around in peoples private lives it proves that whatever you hope to
accomplish can't be done making good political argument. It only
further proves my point that this site is about hate and attacks,
supported by the irrational assumption that everything the council
does is evil and illegal. I simply reject that point as paranoid and
conspiratorial. Since I believe that most rational people are not
paranoid or conspiracy theorists, I have to believe that the
contributors have ulterior motives. The retribution argument is only
a smoke screen to hide what is obviously true and I have already
written: "Also again I ask why people don't sign there names? Is it
because we would discover that the few contributors are dissatisfied
firefighters, landlords, ex council members and TIFA board members?
Could it be because when we see that THEY are the ones with SPECIAL
interests that there complaints would be laid bare for everyone to
see? Would we discover that their agenda is simply to further that
agenda while the taxpayers suffer?"
Finally to the writer that claims his taxes have not gone down: He
has little or no understanding of how he is taxed. The city controls
millage levied, not the percentage of increase, that is determined
by the state and prop A and Headley. As I have said in the past
property tax increases are controlled by a formula that allows only
5% or the rate of inflation as an increase annually. The reality is
that this current council has lowered millage annually for the past
three years by about 1/3 mil/yr. If millage was decreased to reflect
annually the constitutionally controlled increase, the city would
soon be broke. In other words your taxes as an actual number will
always increase even if millage is decreased; it just increases by a
smaller amount when millage is decreased.
Here's the article. I hope people take the time to read it.
Dispelling OPEB "Urban Legends"
By Stephen J. Gauthier
In July 2004, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB)
issued Statement No. 45, Accounting and Financial Reporting by
Employers for Post Employment Benefits Other Than Pensions. States
and large local governments will be required to implement the new
guidance starting with the fiscal year that ends December 31, 2007.
Medium-size and small governments will be required to do the same
starting with the fiscal year ending December 31, 2008, and December
31, 2009, respectively.
The main thrust of GASB Statement No. 45 is to require for the first
time that public-sector employers recognize the cost of other post
employment benefits (OPEB) over the active service life of their
employees rather than on a pas-as-you-go basis. Early indications
are that OPEB cost calculated in accordance with GASB Statement No.
45 is likely to be as much (or more) than three times the amount of
pay-as-you-go payments, raising understandable concerns about the
potential financial, managerial, and public-policy implications of
implementing the new guidance.
Naturally, decision-makers must have a sound understanding of the
requirements of GASB Statement No. 45 if they are to develop an
appropriate strategy for dealing with the issues raised by the
implementation of that pronouncement. Unfortunately, many in this
position appear to be laboring under some serious misapprehensions
regarding exactly what the GASB guidance does and does not require.
Indeed, five such misunderstandings have become so widespread as to
take on a status akin to an accounting-style "urban
legend." This article seeks to dispel such legends so
decision-makers can focus on the real rather than the imaginary
effects of implementing GASB Statement No. 45.
URBAN LEGEND 1-THE OPEB-FUNDING POLTERGEIST
"We have no choice-we have to change how we fund OPEB if we want to
keep getting a clean opinion from our auditors."
The GASB's authority is strictly limited to accounting and financial
reporting. That is, the GASB cannot tell a government what to do -
only how to reflect what it has done. Nothing in GASB Statement No.
45 prevents a government that elects to continue to finance OPEB on
a pay-as-you-go basis from receiving an unqualified opinion from its
independent auditors on the fair presentation of its financial
statements.
URBAN LEGEND 2 - THE LOST FUND BALANCE
"The new accounting for OPEB will wipe out our fund balance
overnight!"
"Fund balance" is reported only in funds that use the modified
accrual basis of accounting (i.e., "governmental funds"). Under the
modified accrual basis of accounting, expenditures for OPEB will
continue to be recognized only as funding occurs, regardless of how
the amount thus funded is calculated (i.e., advance funding,
pas-as-you-go funding). That is, fund balance will only be affected
in a given year by the amount actually funded in that year, on
whatever basis.
URBAN LEGEND 3 -
THE GHOST OF OPEB PAST
"We are going to have to report a huge liability right away on the
face of the financial statements for all of the OPEB we promised in
the past."
The present value of benefits earned to date but not funded (i.e.,
the unfunded actuarial accrued liability) will not be reported on
the face of any financial statements. Instead, that amount will be
amortized as part of future cost (i.e., a component of the
actuarially determined annual required contribution - ARC) over a
period not to exceed 30 years. As long as employers fully fund each
year's ARC, they will never report a liability on the face of their
financial statements. Moreover, even if they do not fully fund the
ARC, a liability (for the unfunded portion of the ARC rather than
for the full amount of the unfunded actuarial accrued liability)
would only be recognized gradually.
URBAN LEGEND 4 - WARDING OFF THE OPEB EVIL EYE
"We don't have to worry about OPEB because we have no written
agreement and the law specifically states that benefits are subject
to appropriation each year."
Accounting traditionally has emphasized economic substance over
legal form. Accordingly, the GASB's Statements 43 and 45
explains that employers can have OPEB to report even in the absence
of a written plan (question 56) and even in situations where
"benefits are limited by the amount of funding approved by the
legislature on an annual basis" (question 57). Simply put, OPEB
exist whenever there is a mutual understanding between employers and
employees (i.e., substantive plan) that such benefits will be
provided, period.
URBAN LEGEND 5 -
THE OPEB OSTRICH
"As long as the retirees pay the full amount of their healthcare
premium, there is no OPEB for the employer to report."
If retirees are allowed to pay the same healthcare premium as active
employees, they are, in fact, enjoying an implicit rate subsidy.
The GASB requires that such an implicit rate subsidy be treated as
OPEB in its own right, even though the employer makes no direct
payments on behalf of retirees. Thus, an employer must report OPEB
cost today for active employees who will be able to continue to
purchase health insurance once they retire at the same premium paid
for active members.
CONCLUSION
There are important financial, managerial, and public-policy
ramifications associated with the new employer accounting for OPEB.
Clearly, a government's failure to control OPEB costs could have a
serious negative impact on its future financial position and
economic condition. Consequently, rating agencies will likely take
the new information furnished by GASB Statement No. 45 into account
in assigning future ratings. It seems reasonable, in this latter
regard, to expect that governments that craft a workable strategy
for financing their OPEB in the wake of GASB Statement No. 45 will
probably fare better than those that do not.
Many observers expect to see significant changes in how OPEB are
managed and funded in the wake of GASB Statement No. 45. It is
important that decisions regarding such changes be based upon a
sound assessment of what ultimately is best for the government
financially and economically, rather than upon a misapprehension of
what generally accepted accounting principles do or do not require.
STEPHEN J. GAUTHIER is director of GFOA's Technical Services Center.
This current council was the first to bring up the challenges of
GASB and OPEB over two years ago. This city was one of the first in
the UP or the state to get a handle on exactly what that number may
be. It also aggressively renegotiated contracts and made staffing
changes to better prepare the taxpayers of this city for future
liabilities. If past practice is an example of future action I am
confident that this council will continue to bring present and
future health care costs into line with what most people employed
outside of the public sector have come to expect.
I might suggest that one of the things this site might want to do is
post current contracts and pension and health care benefits
currently paid by the taxpayers of this city. The reality may be
sobering.
Marcus Blomquist
12-22-2006-02
Comment # 12-08-2006-03 said this at
the beginning:
"I am the writer who
suggested that professionals legally investigate the conduct of
Iron Mountain's city officials and proceed, also legally, as the
results dictate."
If and when you are able to get down
to brass tacks and get this going, I would be happy to make a
financial contribution to this cause.
12-22-2006-01
Every since Marcus was challenged to
a meeting, we haven't seen a post from him. Is it just
possible that his master pulled the plug on him.
As an earlier post pointed out, he
may never have attended a council meeting in his life. Until
the mayor began spoon-feeding him, I am not sure this guy had
ever stepped inside city hall. Maybe he hasn't yet. No need to
when he can phone in any requests and everybody snaps to
attention, or so he claims.
12-21-2006-01
We have had a bit of an
email problem the past few days. If anyone submitted a comment
to the forum and it was not posted, please resubmit and I will get
it on the page. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Webmaster
12-14-2006-01
It will be interesting to see if
Marcus takes up the offer made to him by the 12-08-06-03
post. Actually, he should bring the mayor along, since he is
feeding Marcus most, if not all, of the information.
That, in itself, is worrisome. Bad
enough if we get misinformation from Marucs, who may have never
attended a council meeting in his life, but if the
pronouncements are indeed the mayor's thinking, and I suspect it
is, God help us all.
12-08-2006-03
Dear Mr.
Blomquist:
I am the writer who suggested that professionals legally investigate
the conduct of Iron Mountain's city officials and proceed, also
legally, as the results dictate. I would be absolutely delighted to
meet and introduce myself to you. And imminently. And publicly.
Just to have the pleasure of watching you meet, indisputably, at
least one of those persons whom you ridicule and claim does not
exist. We will meet not on the pages of a Public Forum, however,
but live and in person. I can illustrate and explain what I meant
by turning to professionals, and you can define cowardice to me. Or
what you called cowardness, I believe. Feel free to bring
whomever you like. I, too, will have company. Professionals, in
fact. I'm looking forward to meeting you. I'm curious what kind of
person shouts for evidence even as he overlooks it, and baits
vulnerable people to expose themselves. Please stay alert. I'll
contact you soon to make arrangements.
12-08-2006-02
Who is Marcus Blomquist?
Whenever I drop in to catch up on the Issues site, he has a series
of pungent and offensive new rants. He takes the air right out of
the site. Or at least out of the forum. I'm all for free speech,
but why doesn't everyone just ignore his speech? Address their
issues without reference to him? He sounds like a spoiled, whiny,
and nearly hysterical middle-school girl. His writing, which leaves
a lot to be desired, is a model of attempted spin. Disjointed and
emotive, it mangles critical thought and reason. It distorts,
misinterprets, misrepresents, and skirts the point of practically
everything it addresses. It's narrow, naive, and fraught
with ridicule rather than argument and persuasion. It's full of
half-truths, subscribes to double standards, and appears to be
clearly unfamiliar with the material in other parts of the Web
site. Furthermore, if John Marquart and Ken Tousignant are DVDs,
Marcus Blomquist is a DVD player. That's right. A mouthpiece.
Sort of transparent actually. Maybe not by their choice, however,
but by his. If it were their choice, you'd think they could do
better, especially with their Potemkin village approach to
governing. Also, Marcus Blomquist goes on and on with each
submission about everyone's anonymity and how he signs his name all
the time. Big deal. First, if he is gay and it were 20 or 30 years
ago, and in many cases even today, he'd understand the
realities, nuances, and subtleties of bullying, persecution, and
anonymity -- legality notwithstanding. Second, if I were writing
that stuff he contributes, I wouldn't be loud and proud about
signing my name to it.
12-08-2006-01
Here is another news link on the
county board recount:
The reason given for the new result
in this story:
"It turns out the serial
number on the back side of the box wasn't recorded in the poll
book. That meant officials couldn't do the recount."
The story is causing more questions
than answers. Which story are we to believe? The one in
the previous posting or the one here? Who was responsible
for recording that serial number, or "fixing" the seal?
If you add up the original results,
you end up with 1,741 votes cast. The new results show 1,742
votes cast. How do you end up with more votes cast without
counting one of the boxes?
12-7-2006-03
See this link for news on the county
board member recount:
What is this innocuous little line
from the story supposed to mean?
"The twist in the recount
came when the votes in Ward 3 in Iron Mountain were not able to
be recounted because the seal was fixed on the ballot box."
Twist?
The seal was "fixed"?
12-7-2006-02
Wow. I don't think
there's a better way to sum up the totality of this site than simply
reading the posting that suggests that people should actively work
to "dig" into peoples private lives with a cadre of "pros". This
site and "some "of the mystery writers that contribute to it could
not have sunk to a more desperate and ridicules low.
I think my favorite is the suggestion that the manager graduated
from a "cow" university with a paltry master's degree in Public
administration. Of course it's impossible to see what the writer has
done in HIS life since he doesn't have the balls to sign his name.
The idea that there are countless graduates from Harvard's Kennedy
School is my favorite. How many managers in the country serving
similarly sized cities as Iron Mountain do you think have Ivy League
degrees? The idea is preposterous at best.
I guess what disturbs me the most is the sheer coward ness of the
writer. Writers constantly complain on this site about "retribution"
from the city if they reveal there names. The idea that the city
even cares is strange enough, but the same people then turn around
and do exactly what they claim they are afraid of happening to
themselves: attack and intimidate. Why if the webmaster is concerned
about printing facts does he continue to print everything but. How
does name calling add to information or the public discourse?
The writer is obviously disturbed and the idea that this site would
contribute to the ranting of a man interested only in personal
attacks and dirty tricks, smacks of the bully on the playground that
will eventually start crying when he isn't allowed to play anymore.
The writer then suggests that there will be CRIMINAL prosecutions of
council members! Besides having NO understanding of the law, where
is the EVIDENCE. I am saying evidence of CRIMAINAL activity. It's a
FAR cry from disagreeing and committing a CRIME! Also the city has
an attorney who reviews all decisions the council makes. I guess he
must be part of the HUGE conspiracy going on in this city too.
The suggestion that the vote about the TIFA capture was retribution
for a failed council is RIDICULAS! Where is that evidence? I
actually think the idea that the naysayers on this site believe
that, proves how desperate they are. The reality is that if the so
called rampant lawbreaking had been happening there would already be
an investigation. All anyone would have to do is make it available
to the prosecutor. But that wouldn't serve the purpose of the
contributors of this site would it. It's far more effective to
spread lies without proof to continue the fantasy that city hall has
been taken over by hoodlums. Pointless and sad.
Again I ask the question that I have asked over and over again. What
possible reason would the management or council have for breaking
the law? What would be gained? Continuing the $550 a year they get
for serving on the council? THERE"S NO REASON!
Dissatisfaction is best expressed at the voting booth, not through
public smear campaigns that only lowers everyone's expectations of
what government can effectively do for them.
Also again I ask why don't people sign there names? Is it because we
would discover that the few contributors are dissatisfied
firefighters, landlords, ex council members and TIFA board members?
Could it be because when we see that THEY are the ones with SPECIAL
interests that there complaints would be laid bare for everyone to
see? Would we discover that their agenda is simply
to further that agenda while the taxpayers suffer?
Finally and most disturbingly, the writer leads people along in a
sophomoric effort to "see his master plan" realized. Why doesn't he
or she do it themselves? Spend your money to stop what you have
stated is rampant law breaking! What could the purpose be except to
play some puppet master game with the people that read and
contribute to this site? Tell us who you are? I have, and the only
retribution I've felt is from the people that contribute to this
site, people exactly like you. Cowardly
Marcus Blomquist
12-7-2006-01
This
is rich.
Marquart, a month before it allegedly is to happen, is taking credit
and publicly patting himself on the back for ending the train horns
in Iron Mountain? Resolving a years-long dilemma? Give me a
break! IMHS students of that article, you really are getting a
lesson in city politics, and one day it'll dawn on you what that
lesson is.
Do you know how many people in this town are aware of what actually
happened with these train horns and viscerally hate that man because
of them? And none of it was necessary, neither what happened nor
the hard feelings he caused. There's something wrong with that
man. He just doesn't tick like the rest of us. He'd rather go out
of his way to poke you in the eye than return a call or answer an
e-mail. Now he's taking credit for something he blew to begin with
more than a year and a half ago? Please!
The horns started blaring June 25, 2005. You probably remember that
there were people in this town publicly contacting him by phone, in
person, by mail, by e-mail, in the paper, at meetings, and who knows
how else as early as October 2004, asking if he was going to do what
the federal government (the
Federal Railroad
Administration: FRA) said was required to have a quiet zone, to
"grandfather" a quiet zone, under the new horn rules. No response
from the man whatsoever. None. For nine months, no reply.
Remember reading that, when the horns began blowing, ELS Railroad
bluntly wrote that it was because "the city manager of Iron Mountain
failed to have the whistle ban grandfathered"?
Finally, in December 2005, roughly six months after the unnecessary
racket began and people were beginning to wonder angrily what the
hell was going on, Marquart began responding to complaints publicly,
covering his ass and saying he knew nothing about it, could do
nothing about it, and was looking into it, that it was very
difficult, boo hoo, blah blah blah. This was his general public
reply to any questions about the horns for a year, till now, when he
unbelievably has the chutzpah to take credit for simply doing his
job, late, and fixing a problem he caused in the first place by
not doing his job! Too much! Absolutely too much.
I don't know why or from where this guy was dragged up and inflicted
on Iron Mountain, but he is a real piece of work. I know I've had
just about enough of him and his obsession for appearance over
substance, and I think it's probably time to start working the rest
of the city about him. We all justifiably bitched and moaned about
Franzoi, our last city manager, but till recently Marquart has been
only a better actor; he's ultimately as bad or worse a city
manager. And the more I learn about him, the more I wonder how the
heck he got the job and held it this long! People say he's a hired
gun and lap dog for Ken Tousignant, but the mayor must have
pathetically low standards if Marquart serves him as poorly as he
serves the rest of the city.
And as far as the train horn noise and his boasting about quieting
it are concerned, I'll believe it when I don't hear it. After
which, without an ounce of gratitude, I'll be happy to tell him,
"It's about time, Marquart, you phony and incompetent dolt." And
God help him if the horns don't stop blaring through town after
January 1. It's often surprising, the abrupt, brutal, and complete
demise of politicians and bureaucrats who don't have their fingers
on the pulse of what really matters to and irritates those
people they represent and for whom they work.
12-06-2006-02
Does anyone think the police,
firemen or DPW employees are going to buy into the
"We don't have any money" spiel at negotiations
time, when all we've been hearing is about the good shape
the city is in?
By the way, quite a few posts
back the Numbers Cruncher asked Marcus where the money was
going to come from for active and retiree health benefits
was going to come from down thre road, if TIfa pass some of
its hoard on to the city. Not a peep from him on that
question. Marcus seems to think that if TIFA passes some
money over to the city it will go down some kind of a
"health benefits rathole". It's called a CONTRACTUAL
OBLIGATION and will have to be paid with cold hard cash.
No problem, I guess, with this
so-called fund balance surplus we keep hearing about. Of
course, the same people who tell us how good shape the city is
in have to go out and borrow$100,000 or so for a sidewalk
snow-blower. Why didn't they tap the fund balance, or set money
aside in a vehicle replacement fund if the city is in such good
shape. You don't borrow unless you have to. Actions speak
louder than words.
12-06-2006-01
I'd like to know from
this Marucs guy where I got a tax cut. Except for the reduced
Police and Fire millage, I don't see any tax cut from the year
before. And the council only went along with that damned
reluctantly with a gun to their head. I suppose he doesn't know the
difference between a slight millage reduction and an actual tax
cut. A tax cut means I have more money in MY pocket.
That didn't happen.
12-05-2006-01
Here is a link to a new Frog Country
news story on train horns. Blatant sucking up.
12-02-2006-02
Two quick points for
Shadow Writer,
11. I assume you're referring to the DPW position. The 20 mile
hiring radius is in their contract. Simply different than contract
employees in reference to state law. Also peons? Sick.
15. Of course an argument could be made that if TIFA did not
collect taxes and it went into the general fund and not into
economic development taxes would be lowered. I think you're
dreaming. It would be sucked up by increasing benefit costs. My
point which I've made over and over again is that it is better spent
in infrastructure and economic development. The point is to attract
business and investment to grow and build tax base that will help
fund current and future costs. Passing back TIFA funds will not add
ONE job or investment in our community. As I mentioned a couple
times in the past TIFA is a way to "earmark" money for investment.
Also the current council has REDUCED taxes for three years in a row
even with the TIFA
capture. I explained this completely in previous postings.
Also the "original intent" argument that you continue to use
concerning the health care fund is silly. Things change;
circumstances require ability for government to be flexible. Also
you haven't addressed the fact that ALL other funds have increased
except the local street fund. If the council is doing such a
horrible job how are they able to reduce taxes while increasing fund
balances and completing many projects important to everyone's
quality of life? Most people would find that successful.
Finally, get a sense of humor. There's no reason to attack without a
bit of a smile at the end of it.
Marcus Blomquist
12-02-1006-01
To 12-01-06-01:
You're mistaken. You misrepresent me. Neither do I suggest that it
would be simple to get rid of the current council by recall nor do I
suggest recall be used, largely for the reasons you list. I believe
it was the previous contributor who broached recall.
I couldn't agree more about finding caring and competent candidates
for next fall, men and women who understand that each of us benefits
when all of us benefit. You're right. We have to start beating the
bushes now.
Nevertheless, I firmly stand by the rest of my submission. With
rare exceptions, you can successfully fight realpolitik, even
the sorry example of Tousignant and Marquart's, only with
realpolitik. I'd like to believe that events can happen as you
suggest, but there's no reason to believe they will, and plenty of
reason to believe they won't. Of course it's going to take
thousands of dollars. So what? What's it going to cost individuals
and the city otherwise, in comparison? You either want the results
or you don't. You can't pussyfoot around these clowns on the cheap
-- they'll just drown you out again with their self-serving but
convincing distortions, half-truths, and misrepresentations. I
believe you need people who know what they're doing and how to do it
to gather the evidence simply and understandingly in at least one,
single, easy-to-reach place, then present in clearly, thoroughly,
and persuasively to the entire voting population of Iron Mountain
via all media by the beginning of November 2007. If they gather
and present it sooner, let the chips fall where they may -- you
wouldn't need a recall; at least a couple of the leading officials
involved, elected and hired, would almost surely resign and be
desperately hoping they can avoid prosecution, fines, and jail.
Yes. No kidding.
11-30-06-01
12-01-2006-01
In the "Here's what
you do" post # 11-30-2006-1, the writer suggests how simple it would
be to get rid of the current council members by recall. Actually,
it's even simpler and far less expensive than his/her program of
hiring attorneys and/or PR firms. It would take many thousands of
dollars to do this.
First, bear in mind
that four council members have terms that expire at the end of 2007,
barely a year from now. They are Ken Tousignant, Doug Rigoni, Jeff
Van Laanen and Sally Jacobs. I have no idea how many of them will
seek re-election: all, none or some.
The recall process
is cumbersome as the mayor found out in his disastrous and miserably
failed attempt four years ago. You have to get the right language.
It has to be reviewed and approved by the County Clerk, County
Treasurer and Probate Judge after holding hearings. The
petitioners and the people proposed for recall have the right to
appear before the hearing and present their case. Then, if the
language is approved, you need to get signatures against each of
them in separate petitions. I don't know what the total number of
signatures needed for at-large (citywide) recall is, but I'd guess
it may be around 500 signatures for each one. The people being
recalled, if the recall petition with the proper number of
signatures is submitted to the City Clerk, have the right to review
the signatures. Some people don't like to sign for that very
reason, especially in a small town where so many people know each
other.
Further, there is a
deadline before the next general election for submitting recall
petitions because a recall election has to be held before
the next general election. Besides, petitions for candidates for the
next city council election in November 2007 have to be filed with
the City Clerk by this coming May or early June, only six or so
months from now. There is simply not enough time to go through the
recall process.
In any case, this
whole exercise and expense is unnecessary. Whomever among
those four chooses to run for re-election is very, very vulnerable.
Each and every one of them who chooses to run will get hammered
mercilessly, and properly so, based on their voting record and
other misdeeds, as "Here's what you do" has pointed out. Letters to
the Editor, Speak Up articles, campaign ads, flyers and other
venues, including this website, can do the job effectively and
inexpensively.
The real crux
of the issue is getting competent people
run. Whether four, six or more new names
or experienced former council members run, those current office
holders whose terms expire at the end of next year will be history,
if they are foolish enough to run. They carry far more than enough
"baggage" to go down in flames. For now, don't even worry about the
remaining three whose terms are not up. When they see the results of
the election, they will fall into line, or wish they had.
So, let's
concentrate on encouraging people we know to be good citizens,
with no personal agendas, to run.
Then, let's get out and help them out by volunteering to work on
their behalf and contributing to their campaign. If we can't get a
handful of good citizens to run, we have no one to blame but
ourselves. If you feel you are up to the task,
run yourself.
The citizens of
Iron Mountain gave a very strong signal of how they feel
about this council in the recent Charter Amendment vote, even after
they were told it wasn't necessary. It was a no-confidence vote of
epic proportions. They want a change.
AGAIN,
encourage good citizens to run. You may be one of them.
|