So much water under this bridge, so much change, and yet, has anything really changed?
Anyone who used to read this blog (8,500 unique hits) knows my position is one of open discussion. And what do we have today? Tit for tat. Old, old hat (read deep into this blog and see my predictions in today's reality). We recall her, or we don't. And the question no one ever seems to want to ask in this town is, then what? There is always a next, another move. And it begins again. We can't go on this way.
So tonight, after all this time, I post anew, albeit probably my last (oh yeah, we've heard that before), to make a point I've been trying to make for quite some time now: we have not learned anything after all this and we are doomed to continue in this sad spectacle of polar opposites throwing darts at one another until both sides come to terms with their own responsibilities for adding to this.
Well, that's my opinion. But maybe another opinion, a well stated and deeply considered opinion, from someone who also happens to know the data better than anyone in this city, and also knows the history of the last three years better (and I can vouch for that since I was present at all the meetings referenced), but also even knows the past 28 years as well, may move you. If you can, if you dare to read this new letter to the current City of Troy City Council, and seriously consider the points made, then maybe it was not all for naught. Maybe this could be a starting point for a new conversation, a new narrative. Lord knows we need that.
In my view, this entire community owes Mr. Clint Meyer a huge debt of gratitude. The so-called Hyland-Meyer Analysis is essentially 2% Hyland inspiration and 98% Meyer sweat. I honor Clint's efforts and you should too. Innumerable hours were put into this analysis, and so much overpowering detail that so exposed Mr. Szerlag's sophistry that he dared not address it and chose, as is his manner, to ignore it, again and again and again. This alone should offer insight to the man and his "argument" regarding the budget.
So please, carefully weigh the magnitude of what you are about to read. Please try not to jump to conclusions before you read it all. I was there; this is what happened. This is what the data made clear. If, perhaps, some of our analysis of what this meant was off, remember that no one, NO ONE in the city administration or city council told us we were wrong. No one. Ever. Ponder that. Please.
And so, with Citizen Meyer's permission, I present the following history, a history I assure you is accurate, fair and true:
Dear
Mayor Daniels; Council Members McGinnis, Slater, Fleming, Campbell,
Henderson, and Tietz; former Mayor Schilling; and former Council members
Beltramini, Kerwin, and Howrylak:
Greetings.
I trust and hope things are going well for each of you. My assumption
is that you have seen the news reports (or otherwise heard about) the
recent adventures of former city manager John Szerlag in Cape Coral
City. For those who haven't yet had a chance to read about his
actions, and especially his interesting defense of same (including a
brand new use for the word extrapolated), two relevant articles on this subject have been attached below.
As
a result of the publicity once again surrounding Mr. Szerlag, I became
motivated to review certain events of significance in the recent history
of our community. Thank you for patiently making your way through the
following discussion. I believe there is a productive and educational
reason for doing so, which may become evident as you read the
discussion, and which in any event is addressed in my concluding
paragraphs.
First,
a brief introduction. Barry Hyland and I: (1) are longtime Troy
residents, (2) are political independents and moderates by anyone's
definition, (3) are as a general rule not aligned with or supporters of
TCU positions, TRUST positions, or the former city manager's positions,
(4) are respectful toward and very grateful for the contributions of our
police and fire departments, and (5) have voted "yes" on all three
millage proposals placed before city voters between February 2010 and
August 2011.
Some
of you will recall that the two of us communicated with those on the
previous Council on a number of occasions during the past several years.
The subjects addressed were in each case issues of widespread concern
to the city of Troy and its residents. We additionally met in person
with most of the members of Council (as well as with Asst. City Manager
John Lamerato) in the spring of 2010 in order to explain our report Alternative Solutions to the Troy Budget Crisis. This
report acknowledged the serious General Fund budget deficit anticipated
in the years ahead, and outlined a clean and workable plan to save the
library and put the city's financial house in order. Although
the medicine recommended would have been painful, we also believed that
putting our government on a sound financial footing was possible without raising millage rates or eliminating jobs.
To quickly review the report's highlights: It began by showing that city manager John Szerlag had (in all likelihood unintentionally) misled council members and taxpayers in late 2009/early 2010 with his claims that the five-year budget shortfall facing the city was $22 million. This was not an accurate number, and was in fact very misleading to taxpayers. Mr. Szerlag's figure was not the deficit, but rather the sum of five consecutive (and "compounding") expenditure reductions that would be required to keep the budget balanced from year to year. Over five years, these annual cuts, which continue on and accumulate in subsequent years, would in the end amount to $82 million in reduced dollar expenditures over the five year period. The correct budget deficit, for the entire five-year period, taken as a whole (without changes in anticipated revenues and including mandated new expenditures), was $82 million. This was out of a five-year General Fund budget that, without spending cuts, was on pace to hit $342 million. The $82 million shortfall (or 24% of these tentatively planned expenditures) was confirmed in general terms by Mr. Lamerato in April 2010.
To quickly review the report's highlights: It began by showing that city manager John Szerlag had (in all likelihood unintentionally) misled council members and taxpayers in late 2009/early 2010 with his claims that the five-year budget shortfall facing the city was $22 million. This was not an accurate number, and was in fact very misleading to taxpayers. Mr. Szerlag's figure was not the deficit, but rather the sum of five consecutive (and "compounding") expenditure reductions that would be required to keep the budget balanced from year to year. Over five years, these annual cuts, which continue on and accumulate in subsequent years, would in the end amount to $82 million in reduced dollar expenditures over the five year period. The correct budget deficit, for the entire five-year period, taken as a whole (without changes in anticipated revenues and including mandated new expenditures), was $82 million. This was out of a five-year General Fund budget that, without spending cuts, was on pace to hit $342 million. The $82 million shortfall (or 24% of these tentatively planned expenditures) was confirmed in general terms by Mr. Lamerato in April 2010.
[For
those of you who are confused by this arithmetical exercise, I want to
assure you that this issue is not just a matter of semantics. There was
a real deficit looming, and it was a very large one. Another way to
think of the city's situation is that, without any cuts to 2009-10
baseline expenditure levels, and with several mandated expenditure
increases coming, the city would have needed an extra $82 million in revenues over the coming five years – that is, an extra $16.4 million a year with budgets averaging around $68 million – just to break even.]
I
will explain why I believe Mr. Szerlag incorrectly characterized the
issue as only a $22 million problem several paragraphs hence.
The report also highlighted the manner in which Mr. Szerlag used his proposed "Option One" budget plan in an attempt to persuade residents to vote for an increase in millage rates in February 2010. Option One was heavily publicized in the community, and its provisions were presented as a certainty to occur should the millage fail. This was an overstatement on Mr. Szerlag's part since it would be months before the plan was officially adopted by Council. In any event, Mr. Szerlag’s plan included spending cuts in many areas of the city’s operation, severe cuts in certain areas, and increases (yes, increases) in the Police Department budget. This upward boost in police expenditures was sort of slipped into several of the informational charts released by city management during the pre-election period. A routine examination of the numbers in these charts determined that they didn't "add up". The discrepancy was cleared up in a phone call to Mr. Lamerato, who explained that what looked to Mr. Hyland and me like undisclosed annual increases in expenditures were in fact just that. Mr. Lamerato then explained that the increases were necessitated by police pension funding shortfalls, along with contractually-mandated wage increases for certain members of the police department. [These wage hikes were, incidentally, negotiated in 2008, well after Troy property values had begun their precipitous decline.] According to the provisions of Option One, this police spending boost would be accompanied by only modest (and greatly delayed) police layoffs. [In fact, Mr. Lamerato was privately skeptical as to whether any substantial police layoffs would ever really occur.] There would also be zero in the way of downward change in other police pay provisions. Among other things, this meant that the police department's share of total General Fund spending would grow rapidly over the coming five years.
The library's budget, on the other hand, was to take a 100% hit – that is, the library would close its doors permanently on June 30, 2011.
I may be coming to an incorrect conclusion, but Mr. Szerlag's Option One plan seems to have largely been a political plan designed to utilize the threatened closure of the library as a technique to get the attention of voters and stampede them into agreeing to a millage increase. But it also appeared to be a carefully calibrated plan, designed to avoid "needlessly" alarming taxpayers by informing them of the true size of the ($82 million) budget shortfall. Had voters known the actual size of the problem, they might well have asked the city manager and members of Council to "turn in their executive washroom keys" for failure to plan for a rainy day (or to do anything about – or even comment on – the fact that the city had dreamily spent nearly every last dime of its sizable property tax windfall during the previous quarter century). So it appears that city management decided that voters should only be told that there was a "serious" budget problem rather than a "gigantic" one. No need to encourage examination of the numbers by know-nothing meddlers within the community (something to be avoided at all costs if the city manager was to be able to continue targeting cuts at only certain parts of the city’s operation).
I may be coming to an incorrect conclusion, but Mr. Szerlag's Option One plan seems to have largely been a political plan designed to utilize the threatened closure of the library as a technique to get the attention of voters and stampede them into agreeing to a millage increase. But it also appeared to be a carefully calibrated plan, designed to avoid "needlessly" alarming taxpayers by informing them of the true size of the ($82 million) budget shortfall. Had voters known the actual size of the problem, they might well have asked the city manager and members of Council to "turn in their executive washroom keys" for failure to plan for a rainy day (or to do anything about – or even comment on – the fact that the city had dreamily spent nearly every last dime of its sizable property tax windfall during the previous quarter century). So it appears that city management decided that voters should only be told that there was a "serious" budget problem rather than a "gigantic" one. No need to encourage examination of the numbers by know-nothing meddlers within the community (something to be avoided at all costs if the city manager was to be able to continue targeting cuts at only certain parts of the city’s operation).
Mr. Szerlag was therefore walking a “$22 million/$82 million” disclosure tightrope, and although he was never forced to acknowledge this fact, part of the reason that voters resoundingly defeated the millage hike in February 2010 was that they were understandably confused as to why the amount of new 5-year revenues would far exceed the publicized 5-year deficit of $22 million. Although Mr. Szerlag lost this millage battle, he won the larger information war. Only two members of Council ever even privately acknowledged the accuracy of our budget analysis, and none of the seven chose to discuss the issue in a public forum. Mr. Szerlag would therefore never be forced to acknowledge his (unintentional) error.
Following the February 2010 millage defeat, the city manager began to act in a manner that resembled (I know this seems unlikely) someone exacting his revenge on taxpayers. One thing that is certain is that he was determined to move forward with his targeted personnel/budget cuts, and, strangely enough, his targets rarely included what was by far the largest portion of the operating budget (the police department). Please understand, Mr. Hyland and I were not and are not advocates of balancing the city's budget on the backs of the police department. We just believed that in a time of budget difficulties, all areas should contribute to the solution.
The
Hyland-Meyer report recommended a very different approach from that of
the city manager. Specifically we proposed: (1) equivalent expenditure
reductions for all departments – that is, identical percentage
reductions in an across-the-board manner, to be accomplished largely
through (hopefully temporary) wage rate reductions, and (2) zero lost
jobs. Departments with contracts (the police) would have the option of
accepting layoffs OR renegotiating their contract's relevant wage and
overtime provisions. The moves we recommended would: (a) get the city’s
fiscal house in order within one year (quick action would have also
required less in overall spending reductions than Option One's five-year
drip), (b) treat all departments in an even-handed manner, (c) keep the
city fully staffed to the extent possible (depending on the attitude of
the police union), and (d) demonstrate good faith to taxpayers. Such
moves could then be followed, perhaps a year or so later, by another
proposal for a millage rate increase. Voters might by then be ready to
say "yes" to plugging the revenue gap after having had an opportunity to
see for themselves the seriousness of both the funding issue and its
cure.
Our efforts, and those of many other residents, seemed to help nudge the final May 2010 Option One budget vote from a preliminary 6-1 position (in favor of passage) to a final 4-3 squeaker (in favor of passage). Mrs. Beltramini, Mr. Howrylak, and Mr. Fleming were the no votes, and we were grateful to them. Just one more no vote could have prevented many unfortunate events in subsequent months, but the supporters of Option One carried the day. As a result, numerous full and part-time city employees needlessly lost their jobs, and the level and quality of service to citizens declined in every department except for the Police Department. Perhaps I have been misinformed, but it is my understanding that the police were able to continue operating in a more-or-less normal manner with overlapping shifts, the same pay rates, and regularly scheduled overtime.
The
police contract badly needed to be revisited during this period, but
such a move was not to occur for more than a full year thereafter. The
city manager decided instead to continue cutting non-police staff, watch
“helplessly” as service levels declined, and let loyal former city
employees wander aimlessly in the wilderness. Although it's hard to
believe that Mr. Szerlag would have been angry enough to do this next
thing I describe, some city managers might have also
decided to ratchet-up pressure on recalcitrant taxpayers by doing
something like, say, refusing to spend budgeted road repair funds.
Decayed roads would without question show taxpayers how broke a city
was.
With the city approaching the
end of fiscal 2010-11, Council was belatedly made aware (in a planning
session presentation by John Lamerato, which was broadcast on local
cable) that the General Fund, (which had already been reduced by $4.5
million compared with the budget of two years before) was somehow now "experiencing” an additional across-the-board spending shortfall. In other words, in a time of already significantly tightened belts, there was still money left
over in nearly every department. What Mr. Lamerato had described,
without directly naming it (and which was quickly confirmed by our
examination of the city's nine-month financial numbers) was a plan to
achieve across-the-board spending cuts of a similar percentage size in each department. This
was of course the centerpiece of the April 2010 Hyland-Meyer plan,
rejected earlier as "impractical" by Mr. Szerlag. These
across-the-board (and unpublicized) spending cuts had apparently been
instated early in the year (on top of Option One cuts) and had resulted in discretionary surpluses in
most departments. This extremely interesting (and controversial) bit
of news, being discussed as it was shortly before an election asking
taxpayers for more money, caused most of the Council members to look at
Mr. Lamerato a bit nervously. Mrs. Beltramini finally asked how large
the surpluses were, and Mr. Lamerato downplayed them as "minor." After a
brief period of grumbling (by some) and congratulations (by others),
Mr. Lamerato moved on to the next topic. Mr. Hyland and I were later to
discover that these surpluses could have also been characterized by a
reasonable person as anything but minor. The city was nine
months into the fiscal year, and more than half of the city's areas of
operation were running surpluses in excess of 10%. The General Fund as a
whole had a 9% surplus.
You
may recall that city roads had become a dilapidated disgrace during
this same period, and the beleaguered library was within weeks of
closing due to "lack of funds". But for some reason even the Road fund
and the Library were not spending their full budgets. [The Library's
budget, by the way, had already been calibrated for the reduced
expenditures occurring in the last few months before its closing. This
surplus was on top of those savings.] I know now this was just me
being cynical, but at the time I couldn't help wondering if there could
be a connection between: (1) the deep, unpublicized cuts to General Fund
expenditures, (2) the horrible condition of the city’s roads, (3) the
sad and soon-to-shuttered library, and (4) the third attempt at a millage rate hike coming before voters in August.
When the millage finally passed in August 2011, the city manager was
congratulated by supporters for his astute political strategies. He
had also managed to avoid ever having to admit that he had
been presenting misleading data and messages to Council and voters for
two years (even if unintentionally). Carefully observed from the
outside, however, it was a sad spectacle. Although I voted for the
millage, and was personally very pleased that the library would now have
independent funding, it wasn't an easy thing for me to vote for that particular millage at that particular time under those particular circumstances.
It also turned out that it would take six months after the
close of fiscal 2010-11 before final CAFR numbers were released to the
public. There is nothing quite like dragging one's feet to keep voters
distracted and disinterested. I realize that it is very old news at
this point, but the final General Fund surplus for fiscal 2010-11 was $4.1 million, out
of a budget of $57.8 million (a rather shocking 7% surplus in a budget
which had been characterized by some as unworkably small). Roads and
Streets had a surplus of 11%, and even the library – the already understaffed, underfunded, and near-starvation library – had a surplus of 8%. It was clear that neither of these areas had been allowed to spend what in theory they had been given to spend. It seems that someone had left
no stone unturned in making certain that maximum municipal poverty was
staring every voter in the face when polls opened that August. [Please
see the attachment below for full fiscal 2010-11 details.]
Oh,
yes, and the police department was finally brought back to the
bargaining table that summer, not long before the millage
election. Better late than never, I suppose, and never mind that the
police got another surprisingly gentle deal that time around, or
that Council has been scrambling ever since to restore the police
department (and no other department) to pre-crisis staffing levels.
Bottom line: As the Hyland-Meyer plan had long speculated,
demonstrating to the public that even the police weren't untouchable was
a major step needed to convince voters to pass the millage. It's too
bad that just this one step hadn't occurred in the winter of 2009-10, before the first millage got trounced and the Option One disaster unfolded.
[Incidentally,
Mr. Hyland and I subsequently analyzed historical city population
figures and General Fund budget numbers (inflation-adjusted) for the past quarter century,
and discovered that, although the current gap between revenues and
expenditures was real, and substantial, the actual level of 2013 General
Fund expenditures (as described in the May 2011 proposed rolling
budget) was not nearly at the “crisis level” being advertised by city
management. In fact, such expenditures, in four of the six main General
Fund sub-categories, were nearly identical to average inflation-adjusted per capita General Fund expenditures for the entire period 1984 to 2010. The two departmental exceptions were Public Safety (up $3.4 million from historical inflation-adjusted averages) and the library (down $3.4 million from historical inflation-adjusted averages – and zeroed out – and this was long before the library's dedicated millage had passed).]
Amazingly,
Option One only scratches the surface of Mr. Szerlag's unusual second
term as city manager. One of several other noteworthy parts of his
tenure was the very confusing financial saga of the Transit Center. For
some reason neither Mr. Szerlag nor anyone on Council was ever willing
to fully answer the public's simplest questions on this project. I
would be happy to provide copies of my detailed but futile Transit
Center correspondence with Mr. Szerlag and Council members for any
reader who wishes to be reminded about all that. But in the end, the
Transit Center was apparently the undoing of the city manager. Reliable
data about the center became a part (perhaps a big part) of his feud
with Mayor Janice Daniels, and the feud eventually became heated and
public, and eventually led to his voluntary departure for Florida. Of
course, the feud has also led to the attempted recall (still in
progress) of Mayor Daniels by TRUST loyalists.
In
a sense the "John Szerlag Saga, Troy Edition" is yesterday's news. But
perhaps there are lessons that can still be learned from the city's
unusual approach to its financial affairs over the past decade or so.
Two and a half years ago Mr. Hyland and I were newcomers to city politics, and were drawn into the fray for the first time (at ages 50 and 58) mostly because of the way city management had made a political football of our award-winning public library and its staff. In the process we discovered a number of other problems in both the approach and methods of the city, and as a result we were regularly treated with less than ordinary courtesy by certain members of Council. And we were actively disrespected, and in a public way, by the city manager. Very little of the many hours of work that we put into our financial analyses was ever acknowledged by Council members. Not one of our recommendations was ever formally discussed, and none was ever proposed or voted on by Council. The city manager's very stubborn four-member Council faction simply continued to wear solemn and stony expressions, and do little but shake their heads and complain about "those d--n TCU supporters".
Which we weren't.
Financial numbers always speak
volumes if presented clearly, promptly, and voluntarily . . . and if
Council and residents go to the trouble of examining them. Perhaps the
next time that reasonably well-educated, serious-minded citizens put as
much effort into trying to help a traumatized and floundering city as
Mr. Hyland and I did – in a truly non-partisan manner – Council members
may decide to treat them with more open-minded consideration and
respect. I believe we would all be better off if they did.
All of this, taken together, has been enough to get even the most placid person riled up. The library should never have
been on the chopping block in the first place. And a lot of very good
people (in the library and elsewhere in the city) lost jobs and were
needlessly damaged by the city's machinations over a several-year
period. There were far more enlightened ways to solve the city's
financial woes – such as treating
all departments in an evenhanded and disciplined manner, treating top
officials the same way that the rest of city employees were treated, and
bringing the police department back to the negotiating table far earlier in the process – that would have caused much less trouble for the city and which would have shown good faith to voters. And it most definitely didn't need to take three tries to get a millage passed.
There
is one last point I would like to make. In a certain sense, the entire
municipal fiasco of the past several years was about a library's place – any library's place – in
a community. Troy voters and Council members who were aligned with TCU
were ultimately willing to let the library disappear in order to
demonstrate that any government expenditures that aren't about property protection (police, fire, and courts) are
"socialist" in nature and need to be restrained or eliminated. On the
other side, voters and Council members who were aligned with Mr. Szerlag
and TRUST were ultimately willing to use the library as a pawn in an
unsavory power-play to prove that TCU's ultra-conservative stance on
taxation was grossly misguided. [They may have also wanted to prove
that they could successfully force a tax increase if they wanted it bad enough.]
By
my reckoning, both sides made a few good points and a bunch of bad
ones. Both sides certainly made dishonest and/or incomplete arguments
on a more-or-less continuous basis for two straight years (and
counting). And both sides should feel pretty bad about this. It was,
after all, the library we were talking about. And not just any
library, but the award-winning Troy Public Library. And we almost lost
it because of political gamesmanship. The library is our community's
intellectual center, and its "public square", and I daresay it is the
city's emotional heart as well. It would be fairly easy to make a case
that a public library is the first thing that should be created with any community's public funds, and the last
thing that should be touched when public funds become scarce. Many
intelligent, sensible people through the years have said that they would
rather have a library and no other functioning part of government than a
"perfect" government and no library.
TCU followers, many of you are quite religious. Have you ever considered the idea that a library is everybody's
church? It is a place of peaceful, quiet reverence where people can go
to learn in a very efficient manner about God's creation. It can very
easily be thought of as a "holy" place where God's handiwork – which is certainly one of his revelations to all of us, and may be his only revelation to most of us – can be studied freely and at one's own pace.
And
the TRUST followers of Mr. Szerlag, surely you can see how important a
library is to a community. Mr. Szerlag himself is very proud of his
intellectual achievements, and his communication skills, and his erudite
taste. I'll bet a library was a crucial part of the educational
process at some point in his life. And the four-member Council faction
who supported Mr. Szerlag through thick and thin. For goodness sake . .
. do you need to be reminded that two of you were school teachers and one of you is an attorney? Where do you think the world would be without libraries? Where do you think you would be without libraries?
Ladies and gentlemen of the current City Council, I don't mean to put added pressure on you, but your community is watching. Be a good example. All of us need a good example. Speak the truth at public meetings, and speak the full truth.
Don't hedge, don't play political games, don't tell just a fraction of
the story, and don't use silence as your weapon. If just one of you
could become a forthright spokesman and statesman on behalf of the
entire city, the rest would follow suit. Much time has been wasted in
the past decade with power games. It's time to do better, and I believe
you can.
For those of you still reading this lengthy discussion, thanks very much for staying with me to the end.
Very sincerely,
Clinton Meyer
Clinton Meyer
3600 Old Creek
