Week in Review
Hillsdale City Council, Monday, March 4
For the first time since our (prestigious and respectable) publication began covering the words and (mis)deeds of the Hillsdale City Council, the body deliberated about the best course of action in a manner responsive to the vocal public. But alas!—only a select few sitting at the table were up to the task. Settle in . . .
Act I: the Prologue
Mayor Pro Tem Paladino, following up on last meeting’s Consent Agenda discussion with an assertion of his authority as presiding officer: “The Michigan Municipal League and Robert’s Rules of Order say that the Consent Agenda is consent-based; it has to be unanimous. . . If one member requests that something be taken off the consent agenda for further discussion, I will treat that as sufficient action.”
County Clerk Abe Dane in all his languid splendor loomed over the Council, musing on birth, life, death, and election law for 30 minutes—an esoteric masterpiece disguised as mere Fact regurgitation. See a few highlights below—
“Last year we had 423 babies born in Hillsdale County.”
“289 people were married in the County.”
“We had 355 death records in Hillsdale County last year.”
“If people know where to look and what they’re looking at, they can have faith and trust that their vote counted.”1
On college students voting:
Councilman Bentley: “Can you say a few words. . . about the college kids registering and voting?”
Dane, TRAINED: “About 300 college students registered to vote. . . It’s in our election law that that can happen. I don’t personally feel comfortable with that.”
Act II: Monroe Street SAD Public Hearing
After some technical discussion, Council voted to move forward with the Monroe Street Special Assessment.
Paladino: “If you have a $5,000 special assessment you will pay $7,100 over the 15-year period if you choose to defer it.”
Councilman Flynn, later in the meeting, on the sacrifices you must make: “At $7,100, the way I figure it is over 15 years, it’s like $39 a month. Please don’t think that I’m a math major,2 but you cut out a couple of coffees, you cut out going through the drive-thru once a week, you cut out a pack of cigarettes, that’s more than $39, and if you squirrel that away, then you’ve got whatever it is per year that you’re going to pay in taxes.”
Council voted 6-2 for the SAD. The Guilty: Bentley; Flynn; Morrisey; Socha; Wolfram; Stuchell. Opposed: Paladino; Bruns.
Act III: The Barry Street SAD Petition Scandal
The people of Barry Street had to object to the SAD twice, having been misled by a City Staff which treated their first objection as valid before changing course and invalidating the first round of letters without consulting Council. In response to the unanticipated invalidation, the people of Barry Street objected once again, this time within the extraordinarily narrow parameters set by our hermeneutically-gifted Staff.
Mackie, on the SAD objections: “Council directed the City Engineer on October 7th . . . to prepare a plan for the establishment of SADs for these project areas. On November 26th, a petition opposing the Barry Street project was submitted to the City Clerk’s office. . . The petition and the letters were included as a communication item on December 2, 2024.”
Paladino, in response: “I believe the City Staff’s perspective is that the petitions have to come in after the day we set a public hearing up unto the date of the public hearing. It’s not exactly clear in the Charter and in the Ordinances that that’s the case.”
Toby, in later support of Paladino’s reading: “The Charter simply provides that if at or before the approval of the assessment someone makes a written objection, that’s the objection. . . Under the clean language of the Charter or the Ordinance. . . that’s a valid objection.”
Act IV: Barry Street Public Hearing
With Council having little interest in reading, interpreting, or discussing laws, they moved into the Public Hearing for the establishment of Barry Street as an official “Special Assessment District.” To do so, given the letters of objection, would require seven out of eight on Council to vote in favor.
The Public
David Hambleton, perplexed by Staff sophistry: “Is routine street repair not a function of the normal budget? . . . We’re running a surplus on our budget as far as I understand, but we’re applying Special Assessments to residents with fixed incomes . . . It hits as a tax.”
Tim Polelle, unhappy with Mackie’s antics: “I oppose the SAD on Barry Street . . . On the December 2nd meeting, Mr. Mackie, you did make it pretty clear to Council that they should . . . not vote [on the Barry Street project] at all in order to avoid wasting resources. I think it’s the 37-minute mark of the YouTube video . . . It was pretty clearly taken as a recommendation to Council. And to those watching such as myself, it seemed pretty clear to me that the petition had meaning, had legal purchase.”3
Drew Gamble, with a modest request: “It would be nice to have the estimates written plainly so that we can understand what we are paying and why.”
Shannon Gainer, on the Council’s spending habits: “The City is giving $110,000 to $120,000 a year to the Airport out of City funds . . . I bet none of these people are going to use the Airport. They’re all going to use the road . . . You guys are going to have to look these people in the eye and say, ‘look what’s more important.’”4
CJ Toncray: “The taxes are outrageous already.”
The Council
Jogger, off to a slow start: “Property values will increase with this.”
Paladino: “That’s a good point—if you’re going to sell. If you’re not, it means your property taxes are going to go up.”
Paladino, eliciting a pathetic meltdown from Mackie and his acolytes: “I would like to spend some money to do [the project]. . . We’re going to get $100,000 from the College, we have about $3 million in the Capital Outlay Fund. . . right now we’re collecting interest on that fund: more than $100,000 per year. . . We’re taking in a lot more money. My preference is we negotiate a number—I would say $100,000 to start—and apply that equally to the residential properties in all three districts. So we could give everyone $3,000 of this assessment. . . I think we have the money for this, and I think this is what the Capital Outlay and the General Fund surplus should be for: the citizens’ primary concern besides public safety is infrastructure.”
Flynn, initially failing to anticipate the Decent response: “With that said then, should we table this project for tonight?”
Mackie, enflamed with petty rage: “Josh has his opinion and the City Staff have their own opinion. Do we have the money to do this? Yes. But those monies are earmarked for other projects.” Committing egregious—no, sickening—logical fallacies: “To come here and say we want to treat this particular area different is somewhat disingenuous to me. All that’s happening here is that someone’s trying to be a hero at the expense of the rest of the Council board and Staff, and that’s inappropriate . . . How do you pick the winners and losers? That’s what government is for is to treat everyone the same . . . I’m just warning you that that’s not appropriate.”5 With cutting political analysis: “This is no different from Social Security.”6
Bruns, sending Mackie to timeout: “It’s not the City Manager’s job to determine what’s appropriate. That’s Council’s job. The inappropriate thing going on is your political opinion being offered to this political body.”
Paladino, on the situation as Mackie would have it: “We’re going to collect interest on a surplus, and then tax our residents and then collect interest on their inability to pay. We’re acting as a bank.”
Socha, triggered by strife: “I don’t appreciate you bringing this up. . . It is ad hoc. It’s sprung on us as a surprise. . . To spring it on me like that is insulting because all of a sudden you’ve figured everything out behind the scenes.”7 Turning a phrase: “We’re opening the door for a very severe public backlash because we did something ad hominem.” Repeating things: “I think it’s disingenuous. I don’t appreciate it.”
Paladino: “When would you like to have these sorts of discussions?”
Socha, raising the white flag: “It’s semantics at this point.”
Bruns, later on: “Though we should of course try to improve our policies, the fact of the matter is that we at the table have to make hard decisions.”
Stuchell, Freudian slip: “We’re a City Manager-run busine—government. And I’m not saying your idea was bad, but to throw it in front of us in front of a vote does not give us enough time to understand.” On the virtue of ignoring one’s job: “The City Staff and Mackie know all the nuts and bolts of the budget. . . It’s inconsiderate.”
Paladino: “Again, we are not voting on this right now.”
Bentley, repentant and throwing haymakers at the Council’s disingenuous majority: “At least three of us on Council—notwithstanding my earlier vote tonight—want to lower and eventually end the Special Assessments. Mayor Pro Tem has been talking about this forever. And I believe perhaps Councilman Bruns ran for office because of this issue. So it’s not out of the blue; we are trying to do the will of the people by lowering SADs. . . Mayor Pro Tem has been open about this, and I support him, and the timing is what it is.”
Paladino, trying to explain simple things to people determined not to make decisions or be accountable: “We amended the rules. The residents are still unhappy with the rules. We are now re-deliberating. I don’t understand—disingenuous? This is a deliberative body: I bring forward an idea; we discuss it . . . I’m making a suggestion . . . that is in relation to the objections.”
Socha: “The residents are still adamantly opposed to paying anything, as we heard tonight.”
From the unruly chorus: “That’s not true!” “Table it!”
Flynn, now scolding, mistrustful of the people: “Throwing an idea all of a sudden and getting everybody all excited about it before it’s gone through the proper channels—I don’t think that’s right.”
Paladino, still braving the disingenuous misunderstandings: “We have an objection in front of us. I’m proposing a solution. We’re not voting on that solution tonight. I am bringing it up for deliberation—that’s what we’re doing. . . This isn’t a voting chamber only: we deliberate, we do that in common. This is the only time we get together as a whole Council.”
O Jogger! Our Jogger!: “Legislatures change the statute all the time. . . If we’re going to amend the statute, then it’s not like we’re doing something for any particular interest, we’re saying, ‘Oh my gosh, here’s a situation; we need to amend the statute to do that.’”8
Motion to table the public hearing from Paladino, seconded by Stuchell. In favor: Stuchell, Wolfram, Paladino, Bentley, Bruns, Flynn. Opposed: Morrisey and Socha.
Act V: The Public Reprimanding the Disingenuous Majority
The public unanimously affirmed Paladino over and against the sermonizing of the majority.
CJ Toncray: “I’m very excited about the communication on the board. . . So, bringing things up—I’m thrilled, Josh. . . Fight away! Argue! So that the rest of us can have an opportunity to hear how the process works. I don’t think you all understand that what Josh did—and what some of the other Council members did—is exactly what we want to see: that you’re fighting for us.”
Jeff Fazekas: “I started my adventure in Hillsdale with a sidewalk tax, and that cost me $39,000. . . It’s nice to see actual neighbors showing up.” On the Finance Committee: “The Finance Committee doesn’t really ever seem to shore up the budget, look at the budget. . . they just check off the marks.”
Shannon Gainer: “I really enjoyed the conversation today. I liked that Paladino brought something up. And Wolfram, you had an awesome idea.”
David Hambleton, addressing the Staff: “Your management is appreciated. But it should be management, not dictation. Certainly not telling us that there’s going to be a Road Diet happening on Broad Street because the State has some cash available for us.”
Jill Hardway, incisive: “I just want to be sure that there’s going to be another opportunity for the public to discuss this ‘Road Diet’ proposition in light of the fact that that’s also going to. . . be on the taxpayers. . . When you’re throwing words like ‘disingenuous’ around, I just want to be sure that we’re being very transparent about what’s going on with this Road Diet.”
Mackie: “At the next Council meeting, Alan Beeker plans on providing an update on that Road Diet process.”
Socha, apologizing, rescinding, re-apologizing: “I just want to say, I don’t think you’re disingenuous, Mayor Pro Tem . . . I can’t believe that in the last two weeks that you just had this idea . . . It just seems like it was courting favor . . . I don’t think you’re disingenuous.”9
One final hand grenade—Bentley, for good measure: “As a courtesy to my fellow councilmen, I would like to announce that I intend to run for Mayor of Council in August.”10
If you made it this far, indulge us just a bit longer—the meeting was rather telling, and maybe of real consequence beyond Barry Street.
Mr. Mackie, in his bitter complaint that Paladino wished to be a “hero” to the people, betrayed the fact that he specifically opposes government that is responsive to the people. For Mackie, appealing to or listening to the people is a problem. The Barry Street residents were an annoyance. In coordination with this attack on Paladino were Socha, Flynn, Stuchell, and Morrisey, each of whom to some degree in rhetoric or vote sided against the people on the grounds that the people of Hillsdale constitute a problematic special interest.
Never in this publication’s time has this been so apparent or widely-recognized. The Decent believe that you are to be maximally taxed, fined, and assessed in order to generate revenue for the projects that the Manager—who was not elected, and who has taxpayer-funded professional time to pick and choose which “nuts and bolts” to make public and which to keep private—has unilaterally decided to undertake. Worse: it is not enough for the Manager to be able to control the budget divisions; he must also control General Fund expenditures, or he will throw a tantrum directed at the Council, which to him appears to be a despicable and useless body.11
But the people showed up, and they were loud and clear: the Hillsdale City government exists for them, and not for someone else. They intend to reward people who fight for them. Yet perhaps most troubling for the Disingenuous Majority is the apparent loss of its moral high ground. The people expressed a clear desire—in their presence, their participation, and their applause—to put a stop to the majority’s smug pedantry, its self-righteous scolding. That majority’s rhetoric has become laughable.
External Links
“Simply put, we’re utilizing technology and announcing the launch of Espresso — a generative artificial intelligence tool created to draft polished local news articles from community announcements you send us.” Hillsdale Daily News.12
“The charter says the owners ‘shall object in writing,’ and city staff is interpreting that to mean that homeowners must send individual letters objecting to the assessment. A petition, in their view, doesn’t meet the charter’s objection for a valid objection.” Joshua Paladino.
“Under the new schedule, in-town [Dial-A-Ride] fares for adults will rise from $3.50 to $5, and fares for children, students, seniors, and individuals with disabilities will climb from $2 to $2.50.” Collegian.
“Hillsdale County Road Commission workers say negotiations have been slow since their last union contract expired January 1st.” Fox 47.
“ALDI is set to open their Hillsdale location Thursday, March 13, officially opening the doors to customers at 8:45 a.m.” HDN.
“An endorsement from Hillsdale alumnus Joseph Cella ’91 lifted State Sen. Jim Runestad to victory at the Michigan Republican Party convention contest for chairman Feb. 22 in Detroit.” Collegian.
“It is clear that the United States will no longer be treated as a passive source of resources to be exploited to spread universal justice or accumulate financial capital.” Dominick Sansone.
“On February 21, Donald Trump removed Caleb Vitello, the Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement . . . President Trump needs a replacement. I volunteer.” Josiah Lippincott.
“Folks, if we all work together, and work hard enough, we can hasten the day when we won't have jobs.” Robert Wright.
It appears to the inDecent (not us, of course) that Dane’s entire public persona is committed to purging you of your inner election denier.
No danger of that.
While we of course agree with Ms. Gainer, it appears to us that she is presuming that consciences of the Councilmen have not been overawed by the Developmental Mind.
Mackie, an advocate of corporate welfare on the people’s dime, knows a thing or two about this practice.
The money is in the General Fund, which means it is to be used for general purposes, and is not “earmarked.” That is, its appropriation is discretionary, and if that is not the case, it need not exist.
Isn’t this what Mackie does? Socha, meanwhile, failed to recognize that Paladino was specifically trying to figure things out in a public forum by making a proposal at the public hearing. If Socha or any others are afraid to deliberate before the people, well . . .
We hereby commit Fauxglin to jogging a single mile as penance for his undue cruelty.
Again, we insist that “courting favor” is inherently a part of electoral politics. If one were not favored, how would one be elected?
In fairness to Mr. Mackie, what reason has there been to respect Council?
What are humble and impoverished scribblers like ourselves supposed to do in the face of not one, not two, but three competitors, one of which now auto-generates AI news slop for your slop trough? We, at least, find some solace in the fact that AI can neither replace our malicious and unwholesome slant nor our peculiar ad hominems.
THIS
David Hambleton, perplexed by Staff sophistry: “Is routine street repair not a function of the normal budget?
=======
It is time to change the funding of routine street repair.
Every street is or can be utilize by every resident of Hillsdale and by every visitor to Hillsdale. Since you can't reasonably tax the later, you must tax the former. And that requires a city-wide tax. That method of taxation already exists. Use it.
As far as changing the ordinance: If not now, when?