December 01, 2012 | 11:11 AM
I would have to disagree with Tammie Heazlit. The fire millage passed in August of 2012 and not a single complaint was made about that proposals wording.
To the best of my knowledge 30 others have not come forward stating that they voted erroneously.
One man has claimed he voted no based solely on the notion that he thought 0.6% of this money was going to go to the CIA. Six tenths of one percent was enough to get this man to change his Yes vote to No?
Suppose that he really believed that 0.6% of his money was going to the CIA. Shouldn't this part of the proposal have cleared up any questions he had? "The amount disbursed to the Sashabaw Road Corridor Improvement Authority shall be collected solely from properties within the Sashabaw Road Corridor Improvement Authority District."
The Fire millage that was passed in August finished with the exact same verbage... "Shall be collected solely from properties within the Sashabaw Road Corridor Improvement Authority District." It was passed without a single resident complaining about the wording being confusing. Now it's confusing?
The wording is very clear. 100% goes to the library from every property in the township except for CIA properties where 99.4% goes to the library and .6% goes to the CIA.
Considering that state law requires this information to be put on every township tax hike proposal, will ignorance always be a story when township proposals fail?
The agreement should have allowed for the appointment of officers for the first term only. Other district library boards are elected, but not under this library agreement. Why? Why did this agreement keep us from voting for board members and then guaranteed that unelected board another election? The public isn't well served by this agreement or by appointed boards. Appointed boards tend to answer to those that appointed them.
Library board member Kay Robertson failed to identify herself as a Library Trustee in her letter to the editor. Why? She said: "Many chose to not even respond yes or no to the library proposal."
Let's look at the numbers...
Trustees had 58,912 total votes cast. Four votes were allowed per voter. 58,912 divided by four equals approximately 14,728 people voting.
Brown, Palatta and Kittle had 13,052, 13,561, 13,848 votes each.
The library millage proposal had 18,918 votes.
Those numbers tell me that approximately 4000 more voters chose to respond to the library millage then they did to the candidates. The numbers don't lie, more people chose to make their voices heard regarding the library millage, not less.
This is why board members should be elected, not appointed.
Something to think about... A city of 800 residents got two seats on the board of an entity it didn't build (1 per 400 residents) and a township of 36,000 residents that have been supporting that building got 5 seats (one per 7,200 residents) Not very diplomatic of them, eh?