Craig Pfannkuche
Wonder Lake’s Craig Pfannkuche, a retired South High School history teacher and often Greenwood Town Meeting Moderator, urged more people to attend township meetings.
“I am very pleased with the services provided by township government.”
Identifying himself as a Road Commissioner for Highland Shores Subdivision, Pfannkuche praised the way roads are maintained in his township.
He conceded that townships that are “completely municipalized” might not need township government.
Woodstock’s Joe Monack revealed that his first reaction–one he said was a “knee jerk” one–was, “This is a good thing.”
“Since then, I have been underwhelmed by the proponents,” he continued.
Citing the Question and Answer section he pointed to claimed potential savings from going from part-time to full-time employees after consolidation.
“I think maybe you got that backwards.
“I see the opposite in the private sector.”
Gene Boppart
Longtime Hartland Township Trustee Gene Boppart admitted to being “a lifer.”
He pointed out that people came out from Chicago and”want all these services.
“I feel we are probably the most efficient township in McHenry County.”
He explained that his township had one full-time employee, while the rest were part-timers.
“Our township is happy.”
Mark Nichols
Wonder Lake’s Mark Nichols, who said he father was Road Commissioner wondered if the Task Force was going to do anything with the comments people were making.
“I don’t even know why you’re having these meetings.
“Ar this point there’s no information showing how it will lower taxes.
“I’m really disappointed.”
Former Seneca Township Supervisor and County Board member Ersel Schuster pointed out, “This all started with Bobby in Algonquin Township.
The electorate there has elected and re-elected Miller as Road Commissioner, she explained.
“It’s the taxpayers of Algonquin Township that has made those decisions.”
Referring to the Task Force and County staff, she said,
“For you to justify what they [proponents of township consolidation] are bringing up is ridiculous.
“You’re spending county dollars right now for something that Mr. Anderson and his folks should have prepared.”
= = = = =
Articles in the series:
- 8-13-15 No Cost-Benefit Analysis on Township Consolidation, Just Data Dump – Part 1
- 8-14-15 No Cost-Benefit Analysis on Township Consolidation, Just Data Dump – Part 2
- 8-15-15 No Cost-Benefit Analysis on Township Consolidation, Just Data Dump – Part 3
- 8-16-15 No Cost-Benefit Analysis on Township Consolidation, Just Data Dump – Part 4
This whole deal seems like an attempt by a few to grab power/glory for themselves. The big hero’s of reducing the size of government, when in fact just the opposite will happen, costs will go up. The board members that are supporters of reducing the size of the county board probably are playing the same game.
Here is the skinny on this whole effort.
Back in 1974, Bob Anderson got wind of an effort that was being made by a Republican paralegal in Rock Island who worked for legal aid there and who wanted to abolish all of the Democrat controlled townships in that county.
Bob circulated petitions all Summer, along with his wife, Judy, and a handful of supporters, and managed to collect 13,000 signatures, a probably unprecedented accomplishment at the time.
As soon as he filed he was challenged by township officials.
There were two grounds for the challenges.
First, they said he didn’t have enough valid signatures and made a number of objections, many of which were spurious.
Second, they said he used the wrong language for the petitions.
In turns out that in response to the Rock Island efforts, the state township lobbying organization, Township Officials of Illinois (TOI) had gotten the legislature to amend the Township Code in terms of the requirements for petitions, 3 times in the space of 4 years.
This was to throw the township opponents off base.
It worked, as the Rock Island paralegal was continuing to advise people of the language he had used but in the interim the language had been changed.
Bob took his advice and used language which was no longer sanctioned in the statute.
It turns out, however, that the TOI had outsmarted itself and had inadvertently gone back to a previous version of the Township Code which had a lower signature requirement when they changed the language.
Bob hired me to represent him (which I did free of charge).
I caught the fact that the signature requirement had been lowered and brought that up at the hearing before the county election board.
This caused the township supporters to drop the signature challenges, which would have taken hundreds of hours to go through, and rely instead on the wrong language issue.
After losing at the election board, Bob went to court, and I arranged for him to hire some outside counsel who were state renowned election law specialists.
We were successful in getting Judge Franz in Woodstock to reverse the election board’s ruling and place it on the ballot.
The townships filed an appeal.
This appeal was eventually decided in Bob’s favor but not until just a couple of days before the election, which didn’t allow time for campaigning.
The referendum was defeated by a 3 to 1 margin.
There were two issues raised during the campaign by the township supporters.
One was that if you abolish all of the townships, you have to go to a three member Commission which replaces the County Board.
This is because originally the County Board was composed of township supervisors.
When this was declared unconstitutional as a violation of “one person one vote” principles, the law was never changed.
The second was that there were no provisions for other units of government to take over the township functions.
Therefore, there was no provision for who would maintain the township roads, do the assessments, etc.
Moreover, if such a referendum were to be passed, it would take effect immediately, so there would be no transition period.
If it passed at a Fall election, there would be no authority for the county to take over the snow plowing on township roads.
If it took place at a Spring election, the township assessors would not be able to complete the assessments for that year and the county assessor would not be authorized to do so absent intervening legislative action.
Following the election, a task force was therefore set up at the state level chaired by our own Rep. Ann Hughes.
This task force was supposed to address the transition issues and provide mechanisms for the transfer of township functions in the event that townships were abolished in a county.
Instead of doing that, the task force, under pressure from the TOI, simply passed a bill that made it more difficult to abolish all of the townships in the county by requiring that 3/4ths of the townships had to approve by majority vote in each one, instead of just a majority vote in the county as a whole.
(This is probably not a bad idea but the fact remains that they deliberately stopped there and the task force was disbanded).
In the intervening period, Bob has tried unsuccessfully to have the transition legislation addressed, including coming before the County Board and asking for us to request that from the General Assembly.
The Board took no action.
That’s where it stands now.
The consolidation approach was selected because there are specific provisions for transfer of functions from the previous townships to the newly consolidated township, along with a time schedule that allows for the transition to occur before the next township elections.
It also does not affect the size of the County Board.
Suspicious that this comes up now in light of what Rauner just passed.
All of this is and has been done, of course, in an effort to try and save the taxpayers some money.
The Democrat controlled townships in Rock Island, like those elsewhere regardless of what political party happens to control them, had devolved into patronage laden, nepotism friendly havens which were not and are not adequately scrutinized by the public because they are out of the way.
There are legitimate questions here about, for example:
Why should we have a township road district where the township is 90+% inside of municipalities?
Why should we have 17 separate road district garages spread throughout the county?
Why should we use part time assessors who have to hold unrelated day jobs instead of using full time professionals?
Why should we have 17 different assessment systems which then have to be reconciled and subject to appeals?
Why should we hand out ‘interim public assistance’ at all where there are other benefits available, and, if so, why should it be done in separate applications to 17 different people in 17 different locations each of whom has to have a separate staff person to fill out a separate set of forms inside of a separate office?
Finally, should these questions be just ignored, should they be decided by the County Board in the sense that they are not put on the ballot for the voters, or should there be a debate and decision by the voters and taxpayers after a vigorous airing of the issues?
That is what is being decided right now.
In the smaller townships there are no staff people to take care of general assistance.
The supervisor does that that’s part of his job and he gets paid nothing extra for that.
The general assistance or emergency assistance sometimes helps people that have exhausted all the other revenues in it and keep them from sleeping in the car on night or paying their heat bill so they can stay in their house.
It stands to reason that those wanting to keep their elected positions are lining up against this consolidation.
This should get on the ballot and let the voters decide.
This will NOT add any cost to the price of having an election.
It will just be on the ballot along with other elections. Some serious spin going on.
It is common sense – instead of 4 elected officials for a township, down to two when consolidating two townships.
As for the supervisors, probably could be completely eliminated – not much to the job. Salary and pension there, as well.
Buses, a joke.
Seen the township buses with ONE rider.
We does a good job and people that claim they desperately need that bus, have other options that can service them.
Let the people decide.
I believe in LESS GOVERNMENT.
Grumpy – these issues are handled with other agencies and done well.
Supervisors are really not necessary – that is all they basically do and if the service remains it is easily handled by a VERY PART TIME person.
Some township are paying for supervisors that have to hand out about $1,000 a year.
Not a big deal and we are paying a pretty penny for the supervisors.
Saving money again.
Once again, let voters decide.
If they are happy with their township, they can vote no.
Those who are not, can vote in favor.
It seems the protestors do not want the public to have a choice.
That seems un American.
Thanks Grumpy.
One question is why can’t that be done at IDPA as part of the application process that the person is going through anyway?
Also, how do you know that the person is really a “township resident”?
In the Olde Days people were tied to their farms so the idea was to help them out if they ran into trouble, like were run over by the team.
There were no other forms of assistance either or even insurance.
Today people are mobile and can move into an area for a short time and establish residency and then go someplace else and do the same thing.
What are the procedures for policing that?
Also, how many assistance applications do the Supervisors do per year in each township?
In Nunda they do around 24 and in Grafton about 17.
That’s less than two per month and for that they have an office worker plus the Supervisor plus a roof over both of their heads (except when the Grafton Board locked the Supervisor out of her office and she had to work from home).
How much time does it take to process the application?
Has that person already filled out a similar application at IDPA?
Why duplicate it?
Are the forms for the various townships standardized and do they coordinate with the IDPA forms so IDPA can use the form from the township if the person hasn’t gone in there yet?
Does anyone at the township keep time records so we can evaluate the efficiency or lack thereof of what they do and compare it to the salaries and overall costs?
If the opponents of the consolidation effort are complaining about the lack of figures, how about if they are provided with comparable figures on what it costs per mile for the road work, per application for public assistance, how many hours the folks in the smaller townships are actually working, the costs of maintaining the buildings compared to total person hours worked, etc.?
That would certainly help with calculating if the consolidations will save money and, if so, how much, wouldn’t it?
btw, I do disability law and many of my clients are living in their cars so I am not insensitive to that problem.
Try going to the Walmart parking lot any night of the week and see how many people are sleeping there.
Mike, are you going to finish telling the history of Bob’s involvement with Twh’s and say schools or only part of the story?
The tax increase after an addition and how that played into his hate for Twh’s?
The fact he ran for office with a relative and both lost?
Working with buses and his short comings with his employment there?
Also you keep asking the Twh’s and county to do the data collection work for the Pro side, isn’t that there J O B?
Your cost per center line mile isn’t the best measure, as many of the Twh roads are now in Subdivisions with curb and even sidewalks in a few.
Your points about the Supervisors position, doing away with that position is logical.
You do leave out the fact that they are also the keeper of all the Twh books, but that doesn’t change much either.
Senior buses could be eliminated, but they serve the public much more efficiently than Pace even with low useage, research the numbers if you don’t believe me.
I believe Alg twh is around $30 per trip verse Pace at over $50 per trip.
Mostly because the Twh drivers tend to be part time with no beenies, Pace has all the beenies and staff to dispatch and repair the buses also.
Mike which Twh has 90% of it’s area in Municipalities?
Also you aren’t accounting for the fact that the county has a program to bring non dedicated roads into the Twh envelope of roads to maintain.
If that program is successful, Alg Twh center line miles will go from 68 now to around 100 miles.
I know you want the county to pay for all those roads, one big big McDOT that will become as inefficient as IDOT.
With all those new roads, why centralize increasing driving time and lowering service when the garages are already available?
17 different assessments for 17 different twhs, all voted on by the public right?
Combining Twhs will lead to unionization, in fact rumor has it one group of road employees are exploring that possibility as we speak.
That will also increase costs in the Twh’s that don’t offer much for benefits.
The only reason the higher populated Twhs give the bennies and wages they do is an attempt to keep the unions out.
Very few of the county gov agencies aren’t union already, Twhs represent the majority of them.
Mike we shouldn’t ignore your questions, we should stop ignoring all gov agencies actions, I think we agree with that concept.
This Consolidation deal is being rushed threw though, why other than to play off the anti gov thing since the 2008 economic turn down, part of the pro sides plan probably.
Rushing the process stinks of the ACA voting, where we the public really didn’t know what was in it.
So I’d say slow down some and get the numbers and facts together first, so we can vote with some assurance we know most of the costs, and hopefully the unintended costs will not bite us in the …. if this is passed.
Id say at least make the pro side prove their points till Dec, than a few months for the Twh side to retort, County board consideration a few months, then if a logical deal, on the ballot fall of 2016.
The County board should not put this on the ballot with out approving of the viability.
The county board was elected/hired to protect us from scams, aren’t they?
Justify it, then vote on it, not Nancy P nonsense please.
Hey! Mike!
Have you finished reading your board packet for next week’s meeting?
For someone encouraging others to quit talking about the consolidation circus (your word) you sure spend a lot of time talking about it.
Nob: Just to examine your point about the assessors being “elected”.
The assessors in the larger townships are usually elected via a partisan process.
In our county the GOP nominee usually wins the general election (with the notable exception of Mahady in McHenry).
The township GOP primary takes places on an obscure date in Winter every four years when most people don’t even realize that there is an election taking place, so the incumbents are able to organize their people to get out to vote while the opposition usually doesn’t have a base of voters and level of organization to match it.
Also, you have to have certain credentials to be the assessor so many times only one person can even be found in the township who has those.
There is no reason why the GA could not authorize the county to elect the county assessor if you still want to have that sort of accountability.
This is what they do in Cook (no snide Cook County remarks please).
One of the down sides about consolidation is that some townships who now have non partisan elections which coincide with municipal elections where there is at least some voter turnout, will become large enough (15,000) to go to partisan elections.
Bear in mind also that if you have a partisan system you don’t even have to have a primary election and the party can do it by a caucus vote the preceding December.
Then there is effectively no election. Nunda tried to do this in 2001.
btw, I would appreciate it if people in these discussions stick to facts and not try to throw out hot button red herrings by mentioning things like “Springfield, Chicago, Washington D.C., the ACA, Cook County, etc.
This is not a partisan or ideological issue, or at least it shouldn’t be.
It’s simply a matter of what type of government reform can save us tax dollars while still delivering services that we need.
It’s a nuts and bolts analysis.
If we want more facts and figures, how about we make that a two way street?
We can start out by asking each township to tell us how many public aid applications they processed in the past year, how much time was spent on each, what personnel were used on each, and how much those persons were paid?
For the road districts we can ask how much was spent per mile of roadway and per type of road (all roads are not equal). Also, how many of those were historic township roads and how many were newer subdivisions. They could also show us the routes the trucks have to take to service each part of the roads and include any intergovernmental agreements that they have with other units of government to service disconnected portions.
In terms of assessments, we could ask how many assessment appeals were made per township and how successful they were in each township so we could compare. Also, what is the cost per property assessed in terms of the overhead of the assessor?
There already is legislation allowing a county to have an elected assessor, rather than an appointed Supervisor of Assessments.
Originally, the County Treasurer had a roll in the assessment process.
In a fit of reform, County Boards were allowed to take that corruption-potential function from that elected official and give it to an appointed Supervisor of Assessments.
That happened in McHenry County in the 1950’s I believe.
Stanley Cornue was the first S of A.
When I was County Treasurer I discovered rather large inequities (the average county assessment was about 43%, while newly-built homes were being assessed at 60% of market value).
Fortunately, we elected Forrest Hare Algonquin Township Assessor in 1969. He provided a check and balance on the County Supervisor of Assessments.
Being new to the website, am astonished by comments by “the nob” which seem to dominate this forum.
Evidently there can be no other opinion but his.
Must have lots of time on his hands since his posts register all day long.
Must be a township supervisor or road commissioner with all the incorrect information!
When did that ever stop them?
Fortunately, it’s a thin veil and people can still think for themselves.
Mike Walkup, thank you for your information.
All right!
Mr. Walkup, suggesting that you do not have an opinion on the township issue seems terribly disingenuous.
In your own words you tell us that for decades… you have worked to eliminate townships, whether in McHenry County, or in other counties.
You suggest that “more facts and figures” are needed and that “township” officials should prove their viability.
All of the township’s information is posted annually on the state website.
Use the FACTS; these budgets are pretty easy to decipher.
Sir, it is you and your friends, those engaging in this vendetta, who must prove their carless accusations.
Further, this exercise is NOT the business of the county board to prove or disprove either.
Make your best case to them, period.
This is such a gross example of irresponsible public officials.
It is also discouraging to watch as those who clime on the pied-pipers’ band wagon… regurgitating the unsubstantiated rhetoric thrown around as truth.
The image of a bunch of lemmings comes to mind!
Wow…the above post must be from “mrs.” Nob!
And there is definitely something “regurgitating ” about what comes from this former township supervisors mouth.
Ersel, always the expert, You haven’t a clue how Algonquin Township operates!
The information you refer to posted on the website, and budgets, do not tell the whole story, by far.
Were there any “lemmings” (non elected) township employees in the task force audience last Tuesday?
Did they get their usual paycheck, even though they weren’t doing their taxppayer paid job?
The facts, Ersel, just the facts.
Watcher1940, I’m not a Twh official, nice try discrediting what I am saying.
I have worked for Twhs about 5 years worth.
I also worked a short time for Dist 47, 3 years in the Army, and over 30 years for a municipal gov agency in PW.
The last title I had was Assistant Public Works Director, Street Div.
I am well informed of the subject matter being discussed and can say without much doubt, Twh Gov over all is just as efficient if not more efficient that the other gov agencies I’ve worked with or for.
Plenty of waste to go around, and the facts are bigger gov agencies have more waste.
That is a historically know fact, and no one on the Pro side of the consolidation or Mike W. on the eliminate side has even gotten close to proving wrong.
I’m listening, please prove that wrong with numbers and facts, like most people that dislike paying more and more in taxes, my wallet gets first allegiance.
One more small but important part of my support for Twh’s, they by law have to have balanced budgets.
If that means nothing to you, I’m sad to hear that considering the massive debt being added to by bigger gov agencies.
Yes Ersel, I originally had nothing against townships.
One of my family members was an early Supervisor in Nunda in the 19th century.
But when I saw the lengths to which they would go to keep Bob Anderson’s enormous effort at getting signatures off of the ballot, along with their shenanigans in repeatedly changing the law to try to throw opponents off, followed up by their highjacking of the state’s special task force which was supposed to clean up the transition issues, not to mention their scorched earth litigation tactics on every conceivable issue, I decided that these people had something they were trying to hide.
Their current activities relating to this initiative are true to form.
I have been told by township officials that Bob Anderson’s work was the best thing that ever happened to townships because it forced them to justify their existence and they emerged stronger as a result.
Maybe the same thing will happen here.
What’s a “PW?”
Mike W. said: “btw, I would appreciate it if people in these discussions stick to facts and not try to throw out hot button red herrings by mentioning things like “Springfield, Chicago, Washington D.C., the ACA, Cook County, etc.”
That works for me Mike.
I used the ACA thingy in reference to rushing this to a vote, without proper numbers and facts.
The Pro side often uses other counties twhs as reference which has nothing to do with this county, you did it above talking about Bobs history.
You also use the buggy whip talking point against Twhs which is also nonsense.
I’ll play your game if you will not keep changing the rules to fit your agenda.
Ya Man!
Also the personnel issues should be left out of the discussion.
Y’ll have had plenty of time to legislated nepotism and patronage out of the problem, but have failed to even make a good effort at it.
The fact is it’s every where, it’s just more visible from your front door than the stuff going on with headquarters farther away.
Public Works Cal.
Thanks.
Time for the Nob’s rant:
We need some government, how much will be debated till the end of the earth.
As tax payers we must take away some of the power/decision making away from our elected officials, spending and setting tax rates.
These two issues were a problem that were never addressed properly when the Constitution was written, but should have been, but the partisan nonsense started already way back then with over spending and borrowing to buy votes.
Spending must always match actual revenue available at the time, ie what we are willing to give in the form of taxation.
Borrowing should only be allowed for World Wars, not police actions like we’ve had since 1945.
Even weather disasters should be budgeted for, they’re regular enough, and we should be able to budget for them to some degree.
Individual Income tax rates and Property tax rates should not be roller coasters of ever changing rates that just leads to insecurity for the tax payer not knowing what is coming next from the elected to buy votes.
The class warfare thing must be put in the grave; it’s just dividing the country more and could lead to more and more divisive actions in the future.
We all need skin in the game, and it should be equal skin.
I would propose we force our elected by Petition, which is allowed in the constitution, to enact a Balanced Budget Amendment that has the income tax rate and/or property tax rate control tied to it.
The Congress, State, and Local gov agencies will only be allowed to adjust the income or property tax rates after a 2/3 approval vote within its legal boundary, ¾ vote would be better.
Our choice with a strong majority vote behind changes, not the Pacs controlling the partisan as the wind blows hacks.
I’d prefer a Flat income tax with no deductions at least till we start paying off the debt in a manner that has a time limit attached to it.
Gov agencies that use Property taxes should have no levy power, whatever the home value up or down; the rate we voted on determines what is paid in taxes.
Not enough as most elected seem to keep saying, then come to us with your yearly recommendations and let us vote 2/3 for any change from the year before.
No more passing on our debt to future generations should be allowed.
We borrow almost 40% for the Fed Gov now that must stop ASAP.
To not propel the economy into the dumpster any farther, we should demand freezing the spending at the 2014 rates or a small cost of living, every year till spending is lower than actual revenue.
We can budget a pay back of the added debt which will be pushing 20T by then.
Yawn.
I listening for other suggestions, got one?
More posts from the nob…yawn
“Rant” on Nob.
What you’ve said makes perfect sense.
As to my “not having a clue how Algonquin Township operates,” maybe you have some facts you could share… otherwise that statement rings hollow and careless… LouAnn.
Only Mike Walkup could fill ten column-inches writing about the ‘history’ of Bob Anderson and the current situation, without once mentioning Bob Anderson’s failed bid for Township office (after which Bob “realized” that townships were the devil and must be done away with)…
And for all those ‘cynical’ taxpayers who think that the ‘Beyond the scope of this committee’ statement (repeated over and over and OVER by the County’s Consolidation task force members) really translates to ‘Math and Logic and Planning and Cost-benefit studies are WAY TOO HARD, but we like to color on maps with Sharpies’.
Well, you ‘cynics’ are absolutely RIGHT…
And Mike Walkup objects that local Township elections can be a partisan process?
Perish forbid.
Voters expressing their beliefs and values in the electoral process through organized parties? Shocking!
Of course, in non-partisan elections, candidates are more free to hide their real beliefs and affiliations from the public, rather than standing up and identifying themselves as Republicans or Democrats.
Which can be a useful tool for politicians who don’t like to advertise their real leanings.
In fact, wasn’t Mike Walkup a Democrat originally..?
Hey! Nob!
Why are you referring to the Constitution?
The prior President called it “just a piece of paper” and this President has shredded it.
Mind you, the Constitution started to be ignored when the Fed was established.
Does Mike Walkup not vote like a Democrat most of the time, just like the majority of the County Board?
The Board almost screwed up last year when they actually voted against taking federal tax dollars to fund additional ‘Healthcare Navigators’ but then Mr. Walkup’s apparent mentor, Donna Kurtz fixed that real quick by getting the Board to re-vote and approve it.
For the record, Bob Anderson did not run for township board until 2001, which was AFTER two failed abolition referendum attempts.
He was trying to see if he could accomplish some reforms from within.
His opposition started when McHenry Township voted to spend $100,000 for a four season snowmobile/picnic shelter in a township park.
This is why I laid out the history.
Sorry if it took too many “words”.
There was actually an entire book written about this. MIchael D. Sublett, Ph.D. “Township: Diffusion and Persistence of Grassroots Government in Illinois” (2004).
It’s 400 pages.
One of the reasons that the abolition attempts have failed is that the legislature, under the influence of the TOI, refuses to remove the barriers such as the effect on the county board and providing transition authority for township functions from the townships to some other unit of government.
The consolidation approach does not suffer from those problems as the statute provides for that, plus allows for a time period in between the referendum vote and the voting in the new township for preparation.
With abolition, everything ends the day after the election, as nothing else has been provided, which understandably scares people.
The partisan process works both ways.
There are Democrat controlled townships as well.
Wait until one of the parties decides to forgo the primary election (attended by less than 5% of the voters most of the time), and selects the candidates by a caucus that no one knows about.
The Nunda caucus I attended in December of 2000 which considered not having a primary, (because they didn’t like the sitting Supervisor and wanted to get rid of him), had no one there other than the committeemen who would be voting, and was held in the private office of the township GOP chair.
Talk about back room politics!
I attended as an elected GOP committeeman and was successful in defeating that proposal.
I am trying to keep this discussion fact based so I will not respond to any personal comments about myself, or get off into other, unrelated subjects.
At least Robert Williams is using a real name.
Thanks.
Question on, it is just a piece of paper, ignored many times over the years by both side of the isle, a guideline for our gov with minor flaws like nothing about fiscally responsible government.
It can be amended and has been many times.
It needs a Balanced Budget Amendment bad, because since commander Guys like Carter, Reagan, HW, BC, W, and BO or debt has increased dramatically all in the name of buy votes to stay in power, not so much to make the country better.
Mike, didn’t Bob’s dislike for Twhs really start after he put an addition on his house and he felt the assessor raised his property taxes to much?
At the last Consolidation meeting he complained of the McH Twh crews driving multiple vehicle’s past his place of business with the snowplows up or something like that, I’m missed his exact wording because of his voice volume was to low.
I wonder if he called first and asked why that happened rather that voice a opinion in public without knowing the facts of why that occurred?
As you know there is a process we should all go threw, voice your concerns/question an observed event directly to the people in change, learn the reason it happened/the excuse if you like, then approach the next layer, the Twh board and question again, then go to the media with the complaint. Really at the board meetings the press should pickup on it and report it, but sadly the NWH isn’t so great in their coverage of many gov happenings. Sports they are all over, not so much where our tax money is going though.