Holly Township Public Safety Committee member responds

As a member of the Holly Township Safety Committee, I am rather confused by the comments made by Tom McKenney in this publication and in an email he routed to our Committee. While it is true that Mark Diaz and I met with the Village Public Safety Committee [PSC] to discuss the bid we received in response to our request for local police service, I feel compelled to respond, if only to present an opposing view of what took place.

We initially asked the township to prepare a bid request on our behalf, and submit it to the following law enforcement agencies: village of Holly, Oakland County Sheriff, and the cities of Fenton and Grand Blanc.  The only responses we received were from the Village at $107,114 and the Sheriff at $117,672.

After comparing both proposals, our committee agreed that more important than the lower cost, we felt the Village presented a more valuable service based on their proximity to the proposed special assessment District [SAD]. In addition, due to their current staffing level; we believe they provide more available police personnel if needed to handle 911 calls.

However, the manner in which it was worded seemed to imply that the village would only provide services in the event the MSP were not available, and from our perspective, it appeared the only real benefit was a return to the services provided to the township prior to July 1.  As a result, we requested another meeting with the Village PSC to clarify their proposal.

During this meeting, Chief (Rollie) Gackstetter did an excellent job in providing a much more detailed explanation of their proposal which allayed all of our concerns, and he offered to redraft the document with additional specificity and from our perspective, we felt that portion of the meeting was very productive and provided what we were seeking.

The balance of the meeting was spent discussing the cost of services and this is where I take issue with Mr. McKenney.  We explained that while we believed the residents in the proposed SAD would be pleased with the scope of services offered, we also believed that cost was the most critical component based on the economy and the number of young families in the SAD.

As soon as this topic was discussed, a village resident in attendance became extremely vocal highlighting numerous old conflicts between the village and the township, and then made it very clear that they would figuratively, “come after the people in the SAD with everything they have” if we receive police service for less money than the amount they are assessed.

In order to reduce the tension in the room, we indicated and the PSC members acknowledged that an extension of services to the SDA would be in “soft dollars”, and that the only real cost to the village might be a slight increase in their liability policy, or in the event an officer were required to go to court on our behalf on their day off.

At this point, Mr. (Bill) Kuyk said, “as far as I’m concerned, this is our final bid, and you can take it or leave it”.  We responded that when parties sit down to discuss a proposal, there is always room for discussion, and Mr. McKenney agreed, and indicated that from his perspective, “I would be open to an offer for our services even if it was a small percentage less.”

Our final question for the group was the total number of residences in the village, and Ms. (Marsha) Powers indicated that it was about 2,500. We contrasted that number with the 490 homes in the proposed SAD, and after some additional discussion, the meeting was adjourned.

About two weeks ago, we drafted a counter proposal in the amount of $98,000 and incorporated a number of the items previously discussed to support our offer.  Our document referenced; the 2009 revenue shortfall of about $140,000 that resulted in the elimination of 1-2 staff members, the actual cost of absorbing a 20-percent increase in the department service load for our 490 homes, and then asked the following rhetorical question:

“If as a result of the economy, the village experiences another revenue shortage that impacts the 2010 budget, is it more prudent to accept a counter proposal that is 8.5 percent lower than your initial proposal and apply the additional revenue to offset a large portion of the budget shortage, or be placed in the position of having to reduce municipal services and/or staffing?”

Our demeanor at the PSC meeting was courteous and respectful, as was our counter proposal, and I personally take issue with the harsh tone of Mr. McKinney’s comments when he stated “We have worked hours on this and frankly, we’re being treated like the enemy by the people who want it done for less.”

Even more objectionable was the following comments in his email to our group dated October 16 when he indicated that, “even if you are standing with your foot on your counterpart's throat, it's unbecoming to negotiate with that leverage, especially if the parties are seeking a bilateral agreement.”

He also indicated “a Holly Township resident stood up and warned the police chief and Village Council that their residents may wonder if as public officials they are really looking out for the constituents' best interests if they don't make some deal with Holly Township for minimal police services.”

None of us were at that meeting so there’s no way to validate that characterization.  However, as an attorney and an elected official, I am as surprised by his feigned shock that a resident would deem to share that view in a public venue, as I am that somehow, our committee committed the ultimate faux pas by offering a counter proposal in an effort to reduce the cost for our community

We naively believed that our request might have the potential to heal some old wounds and create another reason for the Village and the Township to work closer together, and obviously we were mistaken.  Many of the village residents and officials need the “Pulte Town” people as fodder to keep the Hatfield and McCoy feud going for another 100 years.  

I truly wish it were different, but its not. It’s unlikely this relationship will change, and in my opinion, the next scene in this long running Kabuki dance will be a large throng of village residents at a future council meeting railing at some yet to be defined reduction in staffing or services, as the band plays on.

If this relatively simple interaction with our group was that upsetting to Mr.’s McKenney and Kuyk, perhaps the village may wish to consider using other council members in negotiations on their behalf in the future.

Mike Gould
Holly Township Resident