Higher Taxes Coming to Crest Hill

At the last work session concerning the City budget at the end of June, the budget as it stood after all the adjustments made during the weeks of hearings was presented.  Mayor Soliman then followed with questions of the council members regarding their opinions on various budget issues.  The final budget was approximately $300,000 in deficit even after every fix was made.

The Mayor kicked off the questions by asking each Council member individually if they would support increasing the utility tax on electricity and natural gas or the sales tax.  The City Administrator and the Mayor discussed the rates in surrounding communities to justify that Crest Hill is below average in taxes and should catch up.  The majority of Council members supported doubling the utility tax to bring in a little of $100,000 of additional revenue annually.  This will be enacted in the near future since the Mayor got the support he needed to raise it.  The Council was also open to raising the sales tax, but recognized that it would be years before any additional revenue would be seen, since the tax would need to be approved by the voters and they would need to do a long educational campaign before there would be any chance of getting it passed at referendum.

The Mayor then asked each member if they were comfortable with the budget being in deficit as it stood.  A number were comfortable with it either because they felt that it was the best that could be done under the current circumstances, felt that a great effort had been made and it was much better than it could have been, or recognized that a large part of the deficit is due to one time costs due to switching insurance.  Others were uncomfortable with it, but were challenged by the Mayor and council members who pointed out that there had already been weeks of discussion and that a budget had to get passed.  There seemed to be an attitude of this is the best that we could come up with so everyone should be comfortable with it.

The final question each alderman was asked was if they had any ideas to fix the budget.  A number of members advocated tightening on small expenses such as costs of conferences,  the purchasing coffee and disposable cups for City Hall, and the Mayor's gas and petty cash expenditures.  These items would not make a huge dent in the budget, but were looked at as every penny counts and making sure the Council was feeling some of the pain as well as the city staff.  Alderman Sternisha spoke on some of the suggestions he has made to the Council early on in the hearings regarding freezing salaries and not hiring more employees, but he did not have the whole list because the Council had not been expecting this line of questioning at this particular budget hearing.  Alderman Convery for some reason decided to attack Sternihsa's suggestion of not hiring more employees and kept asking him to be specific as to who not to hire.  Convery did not seem to grasp the idea that not hiring any additional employees did not mean to firing recently hired employees, but instead meant that from that point forward not hiring any more.  The Treasurer also spoke on some of his ideas for furlough days for city employees and creating an annual business license as opposed to the current license that is good forever.  He was pointing out that Menard's paid $25 for a business license that is good forever, while many households pay more than that each year just to get city vehicle stickers.  The City Clerk got quite upset at this since her office would have to issue the permits and she had not been consulted.

The Mayor gave everyone an insight into his thinking just in the order of the questions and how he presented them.  His first thought was to raise taxes, then to gauge comfort with being in deficit, and lastly to looking for other solutions.  This city needs leadership who put finding solutions and alternatives first and put raising taxes as last resort.  Unfortunately, Mayor Soliman looks to our pocketbooks first and makes it clear that higher taxes come before all else.

Quality and Cost of Police Improvements

At the October 19 City Council meeting there was quite a bit of discussion of the quality and cost of our police department during the public comments portion of the meeting.  It began with a citizen questioning the need for two Deputy Chiefs in Crest Hill when Joliet manages a much larger police force with only one.  While the resident definitely presented himself poorly through his combative attitude, his point was a valid one that deserved a better response.  The following citizens who addressed Council spoke well of the quality of the police force.  Alderman Oberlin and Mayor Soliman used these examples to show that the police department is headed in the right direction.  However this is not the right way to determine if the right moves are being made to improve the police force.  Quality and cost must be looked at together.

Too often we look at public services and desire only the best and do not care what it costs because we each only pay a small share of the cost.  There is also the other side that looks only at costs regardless of quality because they do not want to spend another cent on taxes.  In our personal lives we do not act these ways, we find a balance between cost and quality.  We seek the best value.  Sure the BMW would be a better quality car and a used Datsun would mean spending a lot less, but most of us find something in between that will not bankrupt us but will get us where we are going reliably.  Why can our elected officials and citizens not have this view more often?

A good example of this is the promotion of two Deputy Chiefs.  City officials pointed out that these were not new employees, but two Lieutenants who were promoted and that their old positions were vacated.  Of course, they were given pay raises because they were promoted.  What was not addressed was why they needed to be promoted.  What do they do that they could not do as Lieutenants?  What special abilities and skills did they gain the day that they were promoted that they did not have the day before?  Are they actually worth a cent more than they were previously?  These two officers are better off with new titles and larger paychecks, but how are the citizens of Crest Hill any better off than if we had given them new duties without new titles and raises?

The Mayor and City Council owe the citizens an explanation of the costs and results they are aiming for as they improve the police department.  How much are we planning to spend each of the next 5 years with raises, promotions, and new hires?  This extra cost will translate into how many additional hours of patrol time?  How many additional school visits?  What our our goals for response times?  What are our goals as far as crime rate reductions and successful investigations?  What are the results if the Chief and his officers do not meet these standards if and when our Council takes the responsibility to set them?  Do we just keep giving raises and continuing to employ them regardless of quality or do we make their employment and raises contingent on results?

If you want to see a higher quality police department without breaking the bank, you need to control costs.  The best way to control costs is to make sure that each dollar gets the best value.  It is not about spending as few dollars as possible, but spending each dollar as wisely as possible.  A City Council that spends wisely will get far better results than one that either spends lavishly for quality or cuts to the bone to limit taxes.

A New Day in Crest Hill

The voters of Crest Hill have spoken today and have made it clear that the era of unethical and scandalous government is over.  Mayor Churnovic was defeated in his bid for re-election and the City Council candidates he supported and funded were defeated as well.  This is a good day for Crest Hill.  Four years ago many people were happy to see change, but few realized that change was not always for the better.  Today though we have seen real change and that change is for the better.

Our city will be led by a Ray Soliman, a man who has spent years pushing for open government and calling on the city to follow the proper procedures.  I feel strongly that Mayor Soliman will lead the city with a strong sense of ethics and care for citizens.  I am sure I will disagree with some of his decisions and positions, but I look forward to having a Mayor who will treat all citizens with fairness.

Aldermen Dyke, Lelis, and Convery were re-elected.  Lelis and Convery have been very outspoken on pushing for city government to be more responsive and for the Council and Mayor to work together to improve Crest Hill.  They have also both been very strong advocates for the interests of their wards.  Alderman Dyke is a very level-headed and practical member of the Council.  He did not take on the corruption of the past four years head on, but he has always conducted himself independently of the disputes among other members of the Council.  These three aldermen will serve the city well for the next four years.

The third ward, where I live, elected a new alderman, Neal Sternisha.  I have had the chance to get to know Neal and talk with him on many occasions and look forward to having him as my alderman and also look forward to what he will bring to the Council as a whole.  In particular his professional background in the water and wastewater fields is of particular value to a city facing massive capital outlays to improve our own systems in those areas.  In addition, he is someone who has spoken out for the need for more ethical government in Crest Hill and stood up to a brutal campaign financed by Nick Churnovic.

This is truly a bright new day in Crest Hill.  I hope that all of those who won election tonight remember that it was the desire of the people of Crest Hill for a more ethical and open government that got them elected.  I will be looking forward to seeing a better government, but also will be looking to see Crest Hill move forward and continue to develop to its full potential.

A Different Way of Doing Things

While, I am a resident of Crest Hill and have taken an intense interest in the operations of our city government, I also a resident of a number of other political entities.  One of which is Plainfield Township, due to my living west of Gaylord Rd, unlike most of the rest of the city which is in Lockport Township to the east.  I have long meant to attend the meetings of the township as well as other entities in the area.

My experience at the township meeting stood in stark contrast to the many Crest Hill City Council meetings I have attended.  This was most evident in how public comment was handled.  Public comments were taken at the beginning and at the end of the meeting.  Taking comments at the beginning allowed citizens to speak on issues prior to action being taken and allowed residents not to have to stay until the end of the meeting just to be heard.  Of even greater note though was how the comments were responded to by the Township Supervisor and Board members.  The residents were treated with respect, their issues were discussed in detail, there was a dialogue between the residents and the elected officials, and the residents were told exactly what actions would be taken in response to their comments.  The board spent half an hour dealing with the two residents comments regarding the recent flooding in the township.  

Contrast this with how the Crest Hill City Council treats its residents when they make public comment.  The only response to many comments is a cursory "thank you."  Others are met with derision and dismissal by Mayor Churnovic.  The best one can hope for is a statement that the Mayor will look into it and that the resident should talk to the Mayor later.  The Mayor and Council refuse to ever discuss a matter with a concerned citizen publicly, even though many times an issue affecting one person affects a number of others in the City.  Crest Hill views public comments as something that has to be endured, should be completed as quickly as possible, and do not need to be followed up on.  I think this makes a strong statement about how the City and some of its officials view the citizens and their concerns.

This is jut one more reason why change is needed in the City of Crest Hill.  A change of attitudes.  A change of priorities.  And a change of elected officials.

City Communication

At tonight's City Council meeting a contract with a technology consultant was approved to create and maintain a website for the city.  I had a chance a couple months ago to hear a representative of the technology consulting firm present to the Council.  I was impressed with what he had to say and feel he will be able to serve the city well.  Crest Hill has a website currently, but has done an extremely poor job of keeping it updated and relevant.  I wish it had been possible for the city staff to have kept the existing site in the condition that the citizens deserved.  However that will now be taken care and the first year's cost is being covered by a State grant, thankfully.

I am a strong proponent of people knowing what the City is doing and being able to participate in government.  An open and accessible government is the best way to force our elected officials to do their jobs, work for our best interest, and root out corruption and inefficiency.  A website that provides information on meeting dates, agendas, minutes, local ordinances, and the ability to interact with city government on-line is a large step towards more open and accessible government.  Once it is on-line, the whole world knows what is going on and the actions of out city will no longer be hidden away.  And a citizen that can contact the city and get what he or she needs with a few clicks of a mouse, is more involved than may otherwise have been possible.

During the meeting, I was also reminded a number of times of one of the great communication failings of this city.  Numerous agenda items are voted one with little discussion or explanation.  Most of those in the audience and watching on television have little idea of the issues being decided.  If one really wants to know what is going on, one would need to attend the work sessions where the issues are discussed in depth and questioned fully.  While these work sessions are open to the public, they are poorly attended for a number of reasons and also they are not televised.  The work sessions are not held on a consistent basis or always on the same day of the week.  This makes it difficult to know when all work sessions are.  I find myself often having to stop by city hall and check the posted agendas to keep track of when they are.  And the varying evenings are not conducive to those with busy schedules who need to plan ahead if they wish to attend city meetings.  The real failure though is that the City does not broadcast the work sessions.

The City controls the public access channel that the council meetings and other community events are broadcast on.  The City has given control of the channel to a group of volunteers and has contributed thousands of dollars towards the equipment used to run the channel.  While, I recognize that any broadcasts require the time and efforts of this group of volunteers, I feel that it is the responsibility of the City to work with them to broadcast the work sessions.  I do not think it is too much to ask this of those who run the station in consideration of what the City provides to them in terms of funding and the opportunity to broadcast other content.  I do not see the need for the work sessions to be done in the same quality as the council meetings if that would allow the use of fewer people to record the meeting.  

Communication is about more than the City merely keeping the residents informed, it is about allowing the citizens to be involved in government.  This cannot be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, if the people are kept in the dark and unable to know what the government is doing.  I applaud the City for taking a step in the right direction with the website and urge them to keep working to improve communication in other ways so as to better serve this city.

Upcoming Spring Election

I am looking forward to the 2009 Spring Municipal Election here in Crest Hill. It could be a chance to see real change come to this city and with it the idea that government should be responsible to the people. This will require good candidates to come out and stand for election. I can understand why many people would not want to subject themselves to being part of a City Council that has seen members yell at each other, the Mayor yell at members and cut them off short, the Treasurer refuse to provide requested information in a timely manner, and citizens treated as if their opinions and problems were trivial. This is not an ideal environment, but it is all the more reason why we need as many citizens as possible to step up and put themselves forward to serve this city. We need people to step up and run for all the offices that will be open. These offices will be Mayor, Treasurer, Clerk, and one council member in each of the four wards. There will be some good people who will hopefully chose to run for re-election, however I would still encourage everyone to get involved. Democracy is made healthier by having choices. If you have any interest in serving and making this a better city, please put yourself out there, talk to others in this city, and take the time to learn the steps necessary to run.

As some of you know, I made an effort to run for office in 2007 and was removed from the ballot for technical reasons due to an effort to limit the voters choice. I learned from that experience and would be happy to share my knowledge with others and to give my support and encouragement to anyone wishing to run.

A New Tax and Lack of Citizen Involvement

At the July 7th, 2008 City Council meeting several citizens addressed the Council to ask about the proposed Utility Tax and specifically why more public participation was not sought. The Mayor and Council answered these questions with resounding silence. The Mayor is not one to let any comment go without a response even if his only response is to be dismissive to the citizens of Crest Hill. This time he and the other members of the Council sat silent because the only response that could have been given was that they did not want citizens to participate in the consideration of this new tax. Their hope is that the tax is silently implemented and no one notices.

This is simply the wrong attitude for our elected officials to have. The public deserves to be included in the making of all decisions, especially the enactment of a new tax. Regardless of how badly the city needs the revenue or how much better this new tax might be than the alternatives, the public still deserves to be engaged. Tell us why this tax is needed, tell us what other options are out there, listen to our opinions, solicit our ideas for alternatives, and then make an informed decision and do what you believe is best for Crest Hill and its residents. That is all I and many of my fellow citizens ask of our Mayor and City Council.

Response to an Anonymous Critic, Part II

Here is part two of my response to Anonymous.

Anonymous stated:
P.S. one of the problems with the city is all the residents that have lived here less than 5 years that think the know the city. Maybe you need to go back and see how things were run in this city prior to Churnovic. All of the aldermen/alderwomen under Randich were "yes" people. Nothing got done and if Randich didn't want it it didn't get passed. No matter how good it was for the city.

My response:
In a city in which the majority of its residents have lived here for less than five years this type of comment has no place. I will admit that I do not know how the city was run under Randich. However, the most important thing is not if I know about the Crest Hill of yesteryear, but if I know what good government is. I do know what good government is and I do know what I should expect from a well run local government. That is what I want. If Randich did not deliver good government then, I wish to thank all of you who voted him out of office. However, that does not mean that we should stop demanding better government.

As for my opinions about Mr. Churnovic.... I honestly think that he dominates Crest Hill government in a way that is not healthy for the city and that he is often very dismissive of residents who questions him. However, I think that this comes from the fact that he faced a lot of opposition when first elected and that he feels that he can overcome opposition by using his powers as Mayor. That being said, he is an intelligent man who truly believes that he is doing his best for Crest Hill. I do not think he has ever done anything that he did not fully believe was right and in the public interest. I admire his dedication and determination. I do disagree with some of the things that he has done. However, I have never called for him to be ousted from office, I would prefer to see him focus on making city government more inclusive and open. And I would like to see more moves towards good government in Crest Hill. I do not see any reason why the current Mayor and most of the City Council cannot be the ones to move in that direction. I am neither for or against changing the faces at the head table, I am for changing some of their actions though.

Response to an Anonymous Critic, Part I

I have previously responded to some comments by posting comments myself and I have corresponded with some readers by e-mail. However, there have been some recent comments that I feel should be addressed in their own postings. This first one is being split in half because then last shot that the writer took at me and others deserves to be a subject on its own and in fact is of greater importance than this first item I will respond to. It would be interesting to know who the anonymous commenter was, however he/she did not feel confident enough to leave a name or e-mail address.

Anonymous stated:
You are partially right in regards to the opens meeting act, however, I believe you need a hearning aid because they do say why they are going into a closed session. They may not list each item prior to adjourning to closed session but during the course of the meeting it is mentioned that a executive session is needed. Second - if your truly read the law then you know it is permissable to have an executive session for personnel. Would you like your employer to discuss you in front of everyone, whether it was your evaluation, medical condition for a medical leave or a discpline problem. I think not so get off it. I don't think you mentioned that by "law" you can hold an executive, or closed, session for personnel, litigation, and/or land acquisition. I also belive that by law the minutes from said closed session are available for review after 6 months by filing a freedom of information act. So file away!

My response:
The intent of the law is that the reasons for the closed session are to be part of the motion for the closed session. Off-hand comments during the meeting as to issues on which a closed session is needed are not sufficient.

I never said that it was not permissible to hold a closed session for personnel reasons. I simply stated that not every issue that can be connected to personnel has to be in closed session. I do not think it would be appropriate to discuss an employees medical condition in open session, in fact that may run afoul of medical privacy laws. And I would strongly recommend that discipline and evaluations be done in closed session. However, pay and hours should be in open session. And that does mean that the question of why Employee X is not getting a raise could come up and the answer could be poor performance. And performance issues that are not related to a specific disciplinary action usually should be subject to open discussion.

I certainly do not think that closed sessions are without merit or proper usefulness. I just believe that they should be used sparingly and only when necessary for reasons of protecting key privacy of employees, protecting the city in ongoing legal and financial negotiations and where required by law.

Closed Session = Secret Government

Anyone who watches Crest Hill city council meetings has certainly noticed that there seems to be a closed session at every meeting and that when some council members ask questions the response is that it is a matter for closed session. Well, I am very uncomfortable with closed sessions and feel that government should be as open and transparent as possible. So I decided to read the actual law and to read legal opinions interpreting it. As should be expected the first thing I learned was that Crest Hill does not follow the law.

The motion for a closed session MUST state which of the specific exclusions in the Open Meetings law covers the matter that will be discussed in closed session. If they are meeting to discuss employee contracts, they must say that. If they are meeting to discuss a pending lawsuit, then they must say that. They cannot simply state that a closed session is needed without any further information.

A closed session is never required. The city council can discuss any matter they wish to in open session. If Alderman Vershay wants to know who worked overtime, when they worked, and for how many hours, the City Treasurer can and should answer that question instead of deferring it to closed session. The Open Meetings law states a limited number of topics than MAY be discussed in closed session, but does not limit what can be discussed in open session. In addition, there is no obligation of city council members to keep secret what happens in closed session. The law does not prohibit anyone in a closed session from disclosing any matter discussed and specifically states that there is no penalty or retribution for disclosure.

It is time for our city government to comply with the letter and the spirit of the law. I call upon the Mayor and the City Clerk to ensure that all future closed sessions are properly held and to inform the Council and the public that any subject may be discussed in open session if so desired. I also call upon the City Clerk to release full transcripts of all illegally held closed sessions. And finally, in order to fulfill the spirit of the law, I ask any City Council member who believes in open government to speak publicly about anything that occurs in closed session that should not be secret.

Disappointing Mayoral Achievement

The City of Crest Hill has passed a budget that shows the sad state of affairs in the city. The mayor decided earlier this year that a finance committee was not necessary since a City Administrator had been hired. So the City Administrator brought a budget to the City that was over $1.5 million in the red. After slashing and raising fees and rates, it was passed still over $1 million short. So this is what is accomplished without a finance committee. How very sad. I hope the mayor is proud of his brilliant idea.

Some of the blame rests at the City Administrator's feet as well though. He is the one that brought a budget so out of line to the Council in the first place. When I served as a City Administrator, I would never have even considered bringing the City Council an unbalanced budget. And that certainly was not easy in a city that had seen its finances destroyed by years of poor spending and embezzlement. In fact, my aim was to have a budget that had 3% surplus and then to be able to work during the year to keep spending below budget and revenue above it. Even the most fiscally irresponsible person can put together a budget that is over a million dollars short of balancing. However, I believe that a City Administrator is a professional who should bring with them a set of skills in matters such as finance.

The third person bearing some responsibility here is the City Treasurer. While, I have seen nothing to indicate that he is not fulfilling his duties as specified, I think at this time Crest Hill needs something more. I feel that the City Treasurer needs to stand up and be the voice of moderation and reform. I call on him to watch every cent of the budget and not to release a cent of it that is not specifically budgeted. This type of discipline is the best we can hope for the coming months. He also should publicly release all the financial data of the City. This would allow citizens to know what is really going on and may help to spur a public demand for reform. Finally, the Treasurer needs to take a stand and be a leader pushing for fiscal responsibility even beyond what is role is. He should use his office to pound at the problem and keep it on the front burner. He should lead the call for change.

The City Council should never have approved a budget that sends Crest Hill closer to financial ruin. However, they had to work with a budget proposal that was badly out of balance, they lacked input through a finance committee, and they were threatened that State funding would be lost if a budget was not passed before the end of July. If I were in their place, I would have insisted on passing a bare bones balanced budget and then amended it after August 1st.

In summary, Mayor Churnovic and the City Administrator should have been the leaders of improving Crest Hill, instead the City is facing unprecedented financial difficulties because of the choices and actions of these two officials. It is sad that the time for change has come so soon.

Proposed Sewer Solution

I previously criticized the Mayor and City council of Crest Hill for not better assisting residents with sewer back flow problems and for giving them unhelpful suggestions. Now, I will be fair and propose how I think it can be done better.

First, I need to explain the current overhead sewer program. The City of Crest Hill has a 50/50 cost sharing program for overhead sewer installation. The homeowner hires a contractor to perform the work and pays them for the full cost of the work. The homeowner then submits a copy of the bill to the city. The city reviews the work to ensure it was completed correctly and if so will reimburse the homeowner for 50% of the cost up to a total reimbursement of $4,000.

My proposals will assume a continued 50/50 since I do not expect city officials to be willing to commit to anything more. In addition, there is some sensibility to the idea that homeowners should shoulder some of the cost since this improves the value of their home and is an improvement that has benefits regardless of the condition of the city's sewer system. I would also continue to have it to be a voluntary program.

My suggestion is to have the city coordinate an annual overhead sewer replacement program. The city would contact homeowners to determine who is interested in having an overhead sewer installed. The city would then go out for bids to get all of the work done. This would allow for a lower cost to be obtained. The city would pay half the cost and charge the other half the cost to the homeowners. Each homeowner could either pay the cost at that time or have a special assessment placed against their property allowing the cost to be paid off over a period of up to ten years at a reasonable interest rate. I think this would be more appealing to homeowners, less expensive, and allows for an alternative payment method.