Beaver Island Michigan

Good News on cell phone service. Verizon Wireless will be here this Monday to discuss their plans with both Township Boards and the public. Bob Bradley from 911 Central Dispatch will also join us. So plan on an interesting meeting with the public and both township boards on Monday night at 7:00 p.m....

Representatives of an engineering firm working with Verizon visited the Island last Thursday to look at their tower on Kings Highway. They indicated that Verizon plans to replace their existing tower with one capable of providing "4G" service to the Island. They indicated that Verizon plan...

PUBLIC MEETING PEAINE TOWNSHIP HALL 36825 KINGS HIGHWAY BEAVER ISLAND, MICHIGAN 49782 PH. (231) 448-2389 FAX (231) 448-2692 WEDNESDAY, MAY 23, 2012 2:00 PM TO 4:00 PM INFORMATION ON MICHIGANâ??S OPEN MEETINGS ACT AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT Attorney Robin Luce-Herrmann of the law firm of Butzel L...

SOME VERY GOOD NEWS! In recent conversations with Hightower Engineering Solutions, we were informed of Verizon's plans to replace its existing cell phone tower on Kings Highway in Peaine Township. The new tower will be the same height as the existing one, will be constructed at no cost to the townsh...

UPDATE # 2
Land Acquisition for Beaver Island Townshipsâ?? Airport

To: Peaine Township Residents and Property Owners:

Regarding: Recent developments on the Townshipâ??s longstanding efforts to acquire land for the Public Airport (underway since 2001). This report is a follow-up to the original one posted here on the Forum on November 13, 2011. That original update referred to the claims and circumstances that led to the court decisions described below.

Conclusion of Townships vs Albin Lawsuit:

At its Special Board meeting on December 21, 2011, the Peaine Township Board decided against filing an appeal in the Albin lawsuit. Subsequently the attorneys for St. James and Peaine Townships sent the Judgment Order to the Charlevoix County Circuit Court for entry. Upon entry by the Court, the Judgment becomes final and the Albins are then entitled to collect on the Judgment.

Judgment Information

The amount of the Judgment against the two Townships was $1,085,992.61 and was made up of the following elements:


Probable U.S. and State of Michigan Financial Assistance:

The following information is based upon discussions between the Townshipsâ?? attorney and members of the Michigan Office of Aeronautics:
1) The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration has determined that the above Judgment is â??grant eligibleâ?￾. This authorizes the State of Michigan to provide the Townships financial assistance through the â??Block Grant Programâ?￾.
2) The Michigan Aeronautics Commission has authorized the transfer of $1,200,000 for use in satisfying the above Judgment. This amount is expected to be used in providing a â??Block Grantâ?￾ to the Townships.
3) Upon receipt of the Judgment Order from the Charlevoix County Circuit Court, the Office of Aeronautics will prepare a grant for acceptance by the Townships. If the Judgment Order is received shortly, it is probable that the grant will be prepared in January of 2012.

Probable Cost to Beaver Island Townships:

The Townshipsâ?? contributions to Airport developments have recently been 5% of the total grants awarded. Each Township has shared these contributions 50/50. It is estimated that the Townshipsâ?? 5% contribution will be in the range of $40,000 to $50,000. This is an estimate only; the Michigan Office of Aeronautics will determine the actual amount when the grant is written. Such a contribution may require an increase in the Airport budget, but it is likely that the contribution can be made from the Airport Fund.

Status of Investments in Airportâ??s 10 Year Plan:

The status of investments shown in the current 10-Year Plan, in particular the new Airport Terminal, is unclear at this time. The status of these investments will become clearer as the Office of Aeronautics writes the grant. It will depend on the availability and timing of U.S. and State government assistance and the Townshipsâ?? ability to provide their share of the funding.

Additional Information Will Be Provided After the Grants Have Been Accepted by the Townships. If readers have questions or comments, you may contact me by telephone (Township Hall 448-2389 or Home 448-2441) or e-mail johngallagher@tds.net.

--Jack Gallagher, Peaine Township Supervisor

Update On Land Acquisition for Townshipsâ?? Airport

To Peaine Residents and Property Owners:

Lawsuit Verdict and Potential Consequences:

Last Thursday, a Charlevoix County Circuit Court jury reached a verdict in the Townshipsâ?? lawsuit to acquire land for the Township Airport. After considering evidence presented at the trial, the jury upheld the Albinsâ?? claims that the Townships took 150 acres of their property next to the Airport in August 2003 with a value of $693,000. This value is $502,000 greater than the $191,000 paid to the Albins in June 2010 and creates a potentially significant liability for St. James and Peaine Townships. The Townships are also responsible for interest from August 2003.

Acquisition of this land, including various fees and costs, (legal fees, appraisal fees, court costs) was to be financed with 95% Federal/State funds. The original amount allocated by the State for this acquisition, including fees and costs, was $300,000. The Townships were to provide 5% of the cost. At the present time, the actual amount of fees and costs for this acquisition is not known but should be known in about a month.

Additional funding from Federal/State allocations is expected to be received by the Townships to assist in payment of the costs and fees incurred in this acquisition. It is possible, however, that the allocations received will not cover all acquisition costs. In this case, the Townships will be responsible to pay the difference. The amount of additional funding or when it might be received is not known at this time. A delay in obtaining this information is expected. Using additional allocations to pay for the land acquisition may well defer other planned Airport investments for some period of time.

Significant Information about the Lawsuit:

In June 2010, St. James and Peaine Townships filed a lawsuit in the Charlevoix County Circuit Court to acquire property owned by the Albins next to the Township Airport. This property was required as a result of expanding the length and width of the airport runway in 2001. Approximately 20 acres were required to satisfy the land requirements of Federal and State aviation authorities. The lawsuit was filed under the Townshipsâ?? right to acquire private property for public need and use.

The Townships asked that the 20 acres be transferred to them for use as a â??runway protection zoneâ?￾. Title to the property was transferred to the Townships shortly after filing the lawsuit and $191,000 was paid to the Albins. The amount paid was based upon a professional appraiserâ??s estimate of the value of the 20 acres.

Under the law governing the taking of private property by a governmental authority, the Albins had the right to challenge the Townshipsâ?? claims concerning 1) the value of the property taken, 2) the date on which it was taken and 3) the amount of the property taken. In this type of lawsuit, the jury, after considering the evidence submitted, provides the answer to each of these issues.

The Townships claimed 1) the property was taken in June 2010, shortly after filing the lawsuit, 2) only 20 acres were taken and 3) the value of the property taken was $191,000. The Albins claimed 1) the property was taken in August 2003, 2) 150 acres were taken (all property owned near the airport) and 3) the value of the property taken was $693,000.

After nearly two days of testimony and evidence, the jury upheld the Albinsâ?? claims.

Additional Information:

As additional information is received, it will be reported to you. You may contact me by telephone (Township Hall 448-2389 or Home 448-2441 or email johngallagher@tds.net) if you wish further details.

Jack Gallagher
Supervisor

Gary Voigtâ??your comments on my recent Airport Report call for a response. Iâ??m going to overlook your name-calling and put-downs, and stick to the issues. You are the first to offer criticism and â??counterâ?￾ information regarding my concerns, and I want to respond seriously.

First, you say that after reading my report â??you couldnâ??t come to grips with what I wantâ?￾. As Supervisor, I want to know, and I want our tax-paying public to know, how our PUBLIC AIRPORT will serve the likely air travel needs of Beaver Island residents and visitors over the next 10 years. As Supervisor, I want the Airport Committee to provide information and seek input from our Township Board and our tax-paying public before any 10-year plan is finalized. I want our Township Board to be fully knowledgeable before approving any plan we send to the State. Is this straightforward enough for you?

And as a resident and tax-payer, I also believe Beaver Island should have a public airport terminal designed to accommodate two airline companies, not one. Our terminal should be designed so it can be â??readily developed to its full and appropriate levelâ?￾ should this isolated community need it. We should be prepared to handle all Island air travel from the public airport. The Michigan Airport System Plan cautions against reliance on private airports as a long-term transportation resourceâ??and I happen to agree with them. I suggested we plan and design for two nowâ??so a second airline can be accommodated readily when needed. If planned properly now, a second airline could be added without having to teardown a relatively new terminal or invest in a costly addition. In fact, it even appears possible with the current design, should one or two of the planned â??conference roomsâ?￾ be eliminated. But I am seeking good design now, Garyâ??not a â??twisted Beaver Island field of dreamsâ?￾ that youâ??ve accused me of.

You also make fun of my comments on private air carriers and public airports, saying â??Hello. All public airports use private carriersâ?￾. But while your â??humorâ?￾ distorts, it doesnâ??t mask the basic point. The major carriers you identify (Delta, United, Southwest) donâ??t operate out of private airportsâ??as Beaver Islandâ??s major air carrier does. You refer to the â??old concept called free enterpriseâ?￾ â??but fail to acknowledge that free enterprise assumes a level or comparable playing field. Our goal is to ensure that both competitors here can benefit from state, federal, and local investment. I also wonder, Gary, if you find it an unusual state of affairs to have 85% of our public relying on the availability of a private airportâ??a situation even the state says is risky.

You claim I want to â??to wreck the 10 year planâ?￾ and want to â??set aside the good long range work of the airport committeeâ?￾. Not true Gary. I just want them to be publicly accountable. No Board review or public discussion of the plan has gone on hereâ??and should there be any problems with the plan (such as the possibility I raise) the committee will not be liable. The Township Board will be, and so will the public that will have to pay for them. Why doesnâ??t the Airport Committee want the public and the Board to have a say about the plans? Are they trying to hide something? Are they infallible? What, in your view, justifies their â??behind closed doorsâ?￾ or â??off-Islandâ?￾ decision-makingâ?￾?

You say that questions about â??emplanementsâ?￾ are an invasion of privacy and call for an apology to the owners of our two air-service carriers. I cited â??air operationsâ?￾ and not emplanements, Garyâ??and what I shared was not â??myâ?￾ informationâ??it came from the State of Michigan 2008 Airport System Plan. That is not a private source. It addresses PUBLIC USE Airports and their PUBLIC USEâ??and the public deserves to know it.

We, the public, also need to know whether the claims you make are true. You say, â??The present runway and aprons are more than adequate to accommodate all Island air service needsâ?￾â??but that doesnâ??t seem to be the case. The 10-year plan includes a $240,000 expansion of the apron area in 2013. If you are correct that â??the present runway and aprons are adequateâ?￾ why does the current plan call for an expansion?

What could possibly be wrong with questions about whether or not the planned space is adequate for all Island air travel? Think about all the questions asked about our school when it was being plannedâ??the public was invited to meetings and encouraged to ask questions and make suggestions. The School Board and staff didnâ??t seem insulted by questions, nor did they put people down who shared their thoughts and ideas. What is all this sensitivity about? Questions about the airport plan are not indictments of those who prepared the initial plan. They are simply questions that come from the belief that elected officials and the public have the right and responsibility to be informed and vigilant about their local government.

But I agree with you on two points, Gary. You say we should â??respect the history of this Island and the intelligence of these wonderful peopleâ?￾. I couldnâ??t agree with you more, and I respect people hereâ??which is why I chose to live here and why I take time and money to encourage a sharing of facts and views with them. Respect is not a pat on the head or backâ??it is an honest human exchange that values peopleâ??s different knowledge and perspectives. I regret the secrecy, control-of-others and disrespect that sometimes happens here, and will speak out against it when it doesâ??for I believe that the Island public is intelligent, open-minded, and eager to participate in public affairs. They are not children to be taken care of by those who already have the answers for them. I am here and active in the community because I found Island residents to be people I genuinely like and respect.

The other point we surely agree on Mr. Voogt, is that Jack Gallagher is not Don Vyse. I appreciate your interest in our Public Airport.

Jack Gallagher

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ's) A More Extended Reply to Questions Often Raised about our Airport Politics --For Those Who Like More Rather Than Less Information-- Introduction : As many of you know, we've had controversy around my questions about our Public Airport and its operations. Some clai...

The Beaver Island Airport Project-A Special Report Jack Gallagher, Peaine Township Supervisor September 27, 2010 In my first annual report to the public in January I addressed a number of Township issues, including those on the Public Airport. We've made some progress since then, but now face an ur...

A Year-End Perspective and Report to Interested Islanders
Jack Gallagher, Peaine Township Supervisor
January 3, 2010

Having just read several pieces in the NorthernIslander on the sad state of local politics, I decided the public needed better information. The authors (Connie Wojan and Steve West) characterized the tensions between Peaine and St. James as simply â??good guysâ?￾ vs. bad guysâ?￾. Bill Cashman suggests in the Beaver Beacon, however, that â??the issues involve a debate between two ideologies, â??if it ainâ??t broke, donâ??t fix itâ?? vs. â??we must do things properly to prepare for what lies aheadâ??.â?￾ But Beaver Islanders like to think for themselvesâ??and they need to know what the conflict is really about and the factual information that lies behind it.

In my first year as Peaine Supervisor I struggled to do things â??properlyâ?￾ but found much to be â??brokenâ?￾. The parts that were broken affected our relationships and credibility with state and county governmentâ??and attempts to fix what was broken affected relationships between and among members of the Peaine and St. James Boards. Some still say, â??nothinâ??s brokeâ?￾ and urge admiration of past accomplishments. Others admit some things are broken but donâ??t want to deal with the conflict of change. Others long for the good old days when Supervisorsâ?? family ties kept things quiet and peaceful. And it probably hasnâ??t helped that Iâ??m short and bald.

I donâ??t mind taking some responsibility for the fussâ??but I want it clear that it is not personal. Todayâ??s issues are about real differences in how people want local government to operate on the Island. The issues and the tensions will be with us for a whileâ??though we will be stronger once we work through them. I write here so people can better understand the differences, know what is broken, have the facts, and respond with feedback, questions, or suggestions.

So what are the key differences in how good township government should operateâ??and what is really broken? Three key differences lie beneath the current fuss and are in areas where Iâ??ve been trying to bring about change. They reveal some of what is broken in Peaine:

1. Differences on financial accountability and how to make responsible, informed decisions regarding township revenues, expenditures, and taxes;
2. Differences in how jointly owned Township committees should operate; and,
3. Differences on the need for tough questions and healthy disagreement on key issues.

#1â??Financial Responsibility and Accountability to our Taxpayers (the facts & issues)

This view of good government calls for: 1) Accurate and easily accessible financial information, 2) Appropriate and timely reports, 3) Compliance with state law, 4) Careful budgeting, and, 5) Competitive bids for Township work. Here are some things in need of repair.

• Financial Information. The townships and committees operate without monthly financial statements and without the quarterly statements required by law. The treasurers donâ??t provide monthly reports on cash-on-hand or money invested. The simple list of monthly bills to be paid lacks sufficient information. Itâ??s like running a business based only on a list of monthly billsâ??without any analysis of cash flow, revenues, and the annual budget. Peaine has developed a new monthly financial reporting policy for 2010. It will provide Peaineâ??s Board, residents and other interested parties the timely and accurate financial information they need.
• Financial Disclosures. Part of Peaineâ??s revenue-sharing payment is now being withheld by the State because the Township failed to file a required financial report for 2007. The 2008 financial report must also be redone as it was filed without showing one of Peaineâ??s major financial liabilities (the chipper loan). It was not recorded on the township books and was not filed with the last State report.
• Compliance with State Law. The State Tax Commission ordered a complete reassessment of all Peaine and St. James Township properties. Our assessment policies have been severely out of compliance with state standards for years. All Peaine properties must now be reassessed and recorded with 95% accuracy by March 2011 or further penalties may follow. It is estimated that this lack of prior compliance could cost our taxpayers between $60,000 and $100,000. We are working to do much of this corrective work ourselves to reduce the cost to taxpayers.
• Careful Budgeting. In 2009, I was unable to get any budget work sheets for prior years, and no financial records were left in the Supervisorâ??s office when I took office. Our clerk had almost nothing. The prior practice was to automatically raise taxes as property values increasedâ??with little if any analysis of whether or not the additional tax was needed. This practice is â??brokenâ?￾ since it leads to ever-increasing taxes. This past summer the Peaine Township Board approved a new budget-review process for all of its funds, and asked all committees to prepare a report of revenues and expenditures projected for 2010. All committees did so, with the exception of those jointly operated with St. James. Nonetheless, the improved budgeting work enabled the Peaine Board to limit its tax increase to 1.7%. Following past practice would have resulted in a 4.4% increase.
• Bidding Contracts. Competition typically lowers costs and sheds public light on decision-making and expenditures. For many areas of township work this open request for bids has been neglectedâ??but it is now being opened for all areas.

In Summaryâ??these are just a few of the broken things that have cost our Township time, money, credibility, and frustration. A handicap remains when access to information and cooperation is deniedâ??but I will continue working to correct these problems by pressing respectfully for the needed information. I treat our taxpayer dollars more carefully than my own, and assure you that all major new projects, purchases, and improvements will be reviewed for their tax implications before Board approval. Not everyone agrees with this stanceâ??which accounts for part of our contentious atmosphere at this time.


#2â??How jointly-owned committees should operate (the facts and issues)

This major area of contention involves the Airport and Waste Management Committees, which were created by the townships as jointly-funded, jointly-operated units. St. James Township Board members have chaired these committees for most of the past decade, and have neglected their reporting obligations to the Peaine Board. The governing documents for the committees are incomplete, inconsistent, and often ignored. When issues of authority and responsibility are raised, we get resistance instead of clarity. Hereâ??s how the jointly-owned airport and waste management operations have broken down, how they should be fixed, and how they fuel the controversy between our two townships. I begin with the Airport Committeeâ??but first a caveat. I must deal with the false charges that I donâ??t support the Public Airport and Fresh Air Aviation.

Nothing could be farther from the truth! I support the competitive and complementary benefits both airlines bring to the Island. They are essential to our economy and emergency servicesâ??especially since they are the only means of transportation during the winter. I want both private airlines to be treated fairly and well by our local government, and Iâ??ve said these things publicly, privately, and oftenâ??along with my expressed belief that we can and should improve Beaver Islandâ??s public airport. This is why, in fact, I have been seeking good information on its use, planned expansion, and finances. Those who assign simple false motives to me just fuel the controversy.

Joint Management of the Airport.

• Failure to comply with Michigan law. Michigan requires either an airport authority or an intergovernmental agreement for joint operation and ownership. We have neither. What we have now are two incomplete and incompatible documentsâ??the 1983 airport resolution and the 1993 airport ordinance. At the base of recent conflicts are issues about the authority of the Airport Committee and its obligation to report to the Peaine Board about its finances, plans, and activities. The way to â??fixâ?￾ this broken part of governance is straightforward. Have the Townships negotiate with each other in good faith and draw up a real agreement that conforms to Michigan Law. Though controversial, weâ??re on our way to a solution by having both Townships meet in early January to discuss the alternatives.
• Failure to record and share essential information. Effective joint-operations require more than agreed upon rulesâ??they also require access to the same good information. But Peaine Township has not had such access. In July, as Peaine moved into its new budgeting process, I requested information on a preliminary airport budget, expansion plans, and airport usage. The Chair provided little meaningful information on the proposed budget. I received vague cost estimates on the expansion plans and nothing on airport usage. I got a brochure on terminal expansion that appeared in the Beacon, which provoked calls and criticism to me for running on a platform of transparency while keeping such important things hidden. Apologetically, I explained that I too had just gotten the information.

To better inform myself, as Township Supervisor, on the key Airport Committee issues, decisions, and recommendations, I requested copies of Committee minutes. I never received them. Then Jim Birdsall filed â??freedom of informationâ?￾ requests and got them. Should the Supervisor have to file a freedom-of-information request to get information from a jointly-owned and jointly-operated unit?

Significant gaps existed in the minutes Birdsall acquired. The Airport Committee meets quarterlyâ??so over the past ten years they would have had 40 meetings and 40 sets of minutes. We received 25â??so either they didnâ??t meet that often or minutes were not recorded. Four 12-month periods had no minutes at allâ??even when important activities took place.

Two days before our November Board meeting, the Airport Chairman brought me a proposed resolution that would authorize eminent domain proceedings to take private property. No background information was provided. The Board knew practically nothing about the Airport plans and certainly nothing about why the â??takingâ?￾ was necessary. We put the request on our agenda, but the Board deferred action and arranged for a joint meeting of the Townships later in the month to discuss the â??resolution of necessity.â?￾

At that meeting, both Townships agreed to table the eminent domain decision until better information was available. Some argued in favor of the proposed â??takingâ?￾ because plane crashes proved a lack of safetyâ??but it was pointed out that the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board concluded thus far that all fatal Island plane crashes resulted from pilot error. The issues of airport expansion, eminent domain, and governance will be discussed at a special joint meeting of the Townships in January. The current status of airport expansion plans will be made public and our attorney will discuss alternative ways to legally govern the airport.

Joint Management of the Waste Management Committee.

• Failure to comply with Michigan Law. Michigan also requires an intergovernmental agreement or contract for joint operation and ownership of the Transfer Station. We donâ??t have one. Weâ??ve operated under a 1991 resolution that was adopted by both Townships, but it lacks clarity on the relationship between the Waste Management Committee (WMC) and the Township Boards. The â??fixâ?￾ will require the Boards to reach agreement on a new legal agreement with the help of the Townshipsâ?? lawyer. This work is underway.
• Failure to follow the written agreements we do have. In the case of the WMC (unlike the airport) we have a signed resolution passed in 1991â??but it has not been followed. The WMC membership has not been constituted properly. The spending limitations have been ignored. St. James Township has had three of their Board Members on the Committee for years (constituting a quorum) when only two are allowed. This year they didnâ??t hold even the minimum number of recommended meetings.
• Disrespect for Peaineâ??s equal role. Cooperation and respect are essential to good joint operations, but weâ??ve had little from the WMC. Peaine requests for agenda items are ignored. The Peaine Board officially approved a motion to conduct a study of WMC operations, but the Chair ignored it. In July, the WMC was sent financial information on the prior 15 months and asked to review it and prepare a preliminary budget for 2010. The St. James members of the WMC said they would not participate, but the Peaine members could do it. So they did and had it ready for the next meeting, only to have the chair cancel the meeting without notifying any Peaine members. In response to the financial information request, the Chair wrote that she wouldnâ??t provide it because â??we donâ??t do it that way here.â?￾ Peaine is clearly not an equal partner in this joint operation.
• Failure to develop and use needed operating and reporting policies and practices. The WMC should develop and get Board approvals for its operating policies and practices, but they havenâ??t done so. There are no personnel, purchasing, bidding, record keeping, or reporting policies that I know of. Committee members receive no reports on monthly revenues or expenses or compliance with the budget. The Transfer Stationâ??s fee structure hasnâ??t been reviewed in years. The infamous, expensive â??Chipperâ?￾ was to be evaluated over a year ago based on a unanimous order from both Township Boards. It has been ignored.

In Summary: Joint-ownership and joint-operations require recognition that both Townships are equal. Though our differences focus on insufficient informationâ??they center on differing views regarding authority and involvement. We must work to develop Township equality and improved cooperation. Effective shared operations require agreed-upon rules, access to the same information, respect, and shared decision-making. Peaine wants a respectful, fair, and mutually beneficial relationship with St. James, but it is difficult if we canâ??t find or agree on the rulesâ??or if those we already have agreed to arenâ??t followedâ??or if there is obvious disrespect shown to Peaine committee membersâ??or if there is a refusal to adhere to the law.


#3â??Differences on the need for tough questions and healthy disagreement

Probing questions, disagreement, and argument are important aspects of developing creative solutions to difficult problems. They are valuable toolsâ??and the Townshipsâ?? struggles on how best to organize for more productive work together are actually good struggles. If handled constructively, we can resolve our differences and come out with legal and mutually satisfactory operating agreements. But we must distinguish â??conflictâ?￾ from probing for facts, questioning people about issues, or even differing with them.

Sadly, some people equate questions and disagreement with disapproval and disrespectâ??theyâ??re uncomfortable with dialog that raises contrary views, issues, and questions. This may be true in Wojanâ??s case, for example, when she says, â??all I heard for months at Peaine Township meetings were unsubstantiated charges that a respected group is incompetent and doing harmful things behind closed doors.â?￾ We were in the same meetingsâ??and no one ever made unsubstantiated charges of incompetence or willful harm. That was her discomfort with probing questions, a search for facts and reasons, and the disagreement that occurs in democratic meetings.

More such â??tense discussionsâ?￾ will likely take place in the coming months as the Townships work to reach agreement on budgets for our jointly-funded, jointly-operated units. The Townships have agreed to support these jointly-funded activities on a 50-50 basis, and under current practice the St. James Board sets its millage rates without consulting Peaine. Since Peaine must match 50-50 without consultation or agreement, St. James controls Peaineâ??s tax assessments for the units. This is being changed and the St. James Supervisor has now agreed to exchange budget information by February 15th, 2010â??a step in the right direction. But it wonâ??t end all of our differences.

I ran for office on a platform of open government, public involvement, and fiscal responsibility. I encourage open discussion at all meetings and weâ??ve had, in fact, a number of contentious ones, â??such as the one on All-terrain Vehicles. But weâ??ve maintained a healthy level of disagreement at Peaine meetings. I continue to encourage broad public participation, discussion, and dissent. Important and interesting views have been presentedâ??often dissenting views. The public has included a large group from St. James, including Board members and officers of the Board. They have been very expressive in their comments and questions, but rarely in agreement with my views. I believe, in fact, that theyâ??ve spoken more often and longer than Peaine residents at many of our meetings but theyâ??ve not been stifled, demeaned, or denied the right to speak.

I have not spoken disrespectfully to any participantsâ??nor have I allowed others to do so. I work to be informed about township finances, and its rights and responsibilities under Michigan law. This often requires a search for the facts and pertinent background information. It may make some uncomfortable, but I must perform the fiduciary and legal responsibilities my position requires. Real democracies encourage different views, listen to them, discuss them, examine new data, and reconcile varied perspectives. Our nation was born in conflict and debate over critical issues, and dialog will forever remain a cornerstone of our national, state and local governments. (Just watch the recently acclaimed series on John Adams). Even on little Beaver Island, â??liberty and justice for allâ?￾ must be in our deeds as well as our wordsâ??and it requires comfort with different views, beliefs, questions and perspectives.


Note: This report is posted on the Township Website and any comments or questions can be e-mailed to me at johngallagher@tds.net or mailed to P.O. Box 255, or faxed to 231-448-2692 or call me at 448-2389 or 2441.