I’m a big believer in accountability in government.
If people have questions, comments or complaints, they should be able to voice them directly to their elected and appointed officials.
Officials should be there to listen whether it’s the township supervisor, village manager or the county dog catcher.
Which brings me to the point of this column – the proposed Polly Ann Trail pedestrian bridge over M-24 in Oxford.
The site plan and the bridge itself have garnered significant criticism from the Oxford Village president, police chief and planner, not to mention the fire chief and an OCDA board member.
When I interviewed The Great and Powerful Larry Obrecht a few weeks ago about the proposed bridge (which in his mind is “ready to go”) he told me he didn’t want me to get people “riled up” about this project.
(Just in case you don’t know who Obrecht is, he’s a former Oakland County Commissioner, former Polly Ann Trail manager and the man who initiated the bridge project and is overseeing it. He currently manages the county’s Animal Control Division. In other words, he’s the dog catcher.)
During our interview, Obrecht didn’t seem to understand why I was asking questions or doing a news story about the proposed bridge design. When I said the public wants to know what it’s going to look like, Obrecht suggested the public should attend the village planning commission meeting rather than read about it in the newspaper.
While we certainly encourage residents to attend meetings, not everybody has the time and a newspaper’s job is to inform the public, to be their eyes and ears especially when they can’t be there.
Obrecht’s attitude about the bridge was both evasive and arrogant. It was a mixture of “It’s my new toy and you can’t see it!” and “How dare you question me! Do you know who I am?”
Yes Larry, I know who you are.
You’re the dog catcher.
I have the feeling if Obrecht had his way, nobody – officials or residents – would see what the bridge is going to look like until after it was constructed.
From blatantly ignoring the village bridge committee’s guidelines to submitting an incomplete site plan lacking important details, it all seems like an elaborate ruse on Obrecht’s part to create confusion and keep everyone guessing so he can quietly slip his monstrosity through.
I think the public should let Obrecht know how they feel about the bridge – good or bad. I urge people to contact Obrecht. Ask questions. Voice complaints. Give praise, if there’s any to give. Throw the man a bone.
You can reach Obrecht at (248) 391-4100 or e-mail the Lord of the Canines at obrechtl@co.oakland.mi.us.
You’re probably wondering what I think of the bridge project. I can sum it up in a few words – ugly, unncessary, a waste of money, something only a dog catcher who lives in Orion could love.
Bowwow.

For a stone-cold political junkie like me, just thinking about next year gets me higher than a kite.
It’s an election year! It’s an election year!
I know I have a problem, but I don’t care. There’s no 12-step program for those hopelessly addicted to the American political scene.
Even though he’s dead, I’ll bet Richard Nixon will be running for office somewhere warm next year.
Is Satan an elected position?
But it’s not just the presidential election (i.e. the Super Bowl of American Politics) that gets me all geeked up, it’s the local elections.
Next year is an election year for Michigan’s townships and it promises to be an interesting one in Oxford and Addison.
In Oxford, I’m going to predict right here and now that Treasurer Joe Ferrari will NOT survive next year’s election to enjoy a fourth term in office, if he’s faced with a serious, viable, breathing opponent who can walk and chew gum at the same time.
I base that prediction on a few things.
One is my “Wilhammer Theory.”
In the 2000 general election, Ferrari’s opponent, a relatively unknown independent named Bill Wilhammer, garnered an impressive 1,412 votes.
Due to unfortunate circumstances that arose in his personal life, Wilhammer did zero campaigning, erected not one campaign sign, made no speehes or public appearances, received no endorsements, organized no election committee, bought no advertising in the local newspapers, had zero letters to the editor written on his behalf and didn’t participate in any candidate Q&A’s in the local papers.
Despite all that, Wilhammer managed to receive 1,412 votes. That’s astounding!
That tells me there are 1,412 residents who were willing to vote for anybody but Ferrari, even someone they knew absolutely nothing about and who did absolutely nothing to get the job.
I don’t know if these voters were more anti-incumbent or anti-Ferrari, but either way, they’re still out there. Lurking. Waiting. Watching. And ready to vote again.
Secondly, this whole business with Sharon Fahy’s lawsuit is going to cost Ferrari lots of votes at the polls, just as the settlement cost the township General Fund $50,000 and the township’s insurance carrier $50,000.
Whether you believe Ferrari is innocent or guilty of Fahy’s accusations, one thing’s for sure – voters take a very dim view of any elected official who costs the community a $50,000 chunk of its budget.
That’s $50,000 that could have been spent on something the community really needs – like safety paths for instance.
Thirdly, I know some people who are still mad – and I’m one of them – that the township paid $3,955 toward Ferrari’s master’s degree in Public Administration from Oakland University. That figure was equal to half of Ferrari’s tuition.
Granted, the township should not have agreed to do it in 1996, but by the same token Ferrari should never have requested the funds in the first place.
I guess the sweet slop of the public trough was just too tempting for the treasurer to resist. Oink, oink, pass the tax dollars!
Sorry Joe, but I think your time is up. Better start getting the old resume together. I’m sure there’s a village manager position open somewhere.
But hey, it’s just a prediction. If I’m wrong, I’ll put in a few bucks toward your doctorate.

When two or more candidates run against each other for a government position, it’s called an election.
When an incumbent official runs unopposed for his position, it’s called a formality.
The first is a healthy process whereby the system of representative government renews, refreshes and perpetuates itself.
The second does nothing to strengthen representative government. Just the opposite. It severely weakens it.
Uncontested elections perpetuate low voter interest and low voter-turnout. In these situations, people know their votes literally don’t count because there’s no choice, so why bother to go to the polls. All the candidate has to do is vote for himself and he’s in.
Uncontested elections create lazy officials who believe they don’t have to work hard at their jobs or campaigns to garner votes. They expect re-election.
To them, re-election to their office is not seen as a privilege bestowed upon them by constituents making a thoughtful choice. It’s seen as a right. The same way a monarch or dictator views their position. Pure hubris.
Is that how we want elected officials in our villages and townships to view themselves?
The only way to prevent that is to run for office.
There’s no excuse for uncontested elections. There’s no reason every village council seat and township board position shouldn’t have a candidate in the 2004 elections.
Make no mistake, uncontested elections do NOT mean that 100 percent of the people think all of our elected officials are doing a bang-up job and require no challengers. Although some would have you believe it, an uncontested election is not a mandate from the people.
There are a lot of reasons people don’t run for office. Some bad, some good.
The bad ones are laziness, disinterest in government and politics, lack of civic responsibility and pride, apathy, etc. The good ones are a desire to spend more time with family, a demanding job, spending lots of hours doing volunteer work, etc.
But whatever the reason, there’s no excuse that communities consisting of thousands and thousands of eligible, potential candidates, can’t scare up a handful of people to challenge the incumbent officials.
The last three Oxford Village Council elections have been uncontested – mere formalities, not elections.
But maybe the March 8, 2004 election can be different. Maybe there can be a real election with incumbents and challengers, real campaigns with signs and literature and a real choice in which voters are forced to think and decide and translate that into action at the polls.
But it’s all up to YOU whether or not that happens.
There are two, three-year council seats open for the upcoming village election. All you have to do to run is file a nominating petition (which can be picked up at the village offices) containing a minimum of 25 valid signatures from registered village voters with the village clerk by 5 p.m. Friday, January 16.
If you’ve been a village resident for at least six months, are a registered voter, a U.S. citizen and at least 18 years of age, congratulations – you qualify to help govern your community and our tax dollars.
If no one except the incumbents file petitions for their two council seats, the village election will once again be a formality. The incumbents will again be the defacto winners and voters will again be the losers.
NOTE: I learned Tuesday that Oxford Township resident Paul Butkis pulled nominating petitions to run for township treasurer. I applaud Mr. Butkis for wanting to get involved in his local government. I certainly hope more residents follow his lead.

Despite what some state legislators are saying in the news media these days, I think term limits are a good and healthy thing for our representative system of government.
Term limits can give rise to new points of view, fresh ideas and serve as an impediment to business-as-usual politics.
I don’t believe term limits are some sort of panacea which will cure all the ills government is prone to and give us perfect representatives.
Government – and indeed society – can never be perfect because men by their very nature are hopeflessly imperfect beings.
“In Adam’s fall, we sinned all.”
But I do believe term limits prevent incumbent officials from becoming so solidly entrenched in their positions that it usually takes death, retirement, resignation, or a lust for higher office to get them out.
Beyond state government, I would like to see term limits extended to the local level – township boards, village and city councils, school boards, county officials, etc.
One elected position should never become a lifetime occupation for anyone.
Nobody should hold an elected office for 20 or 30 (or more) years. I don’t care who they are.
After decades upon decades in the same position, most people become set in their ways, unwilling to try new ideas, and a little too comfortable to take risks.
I think at a certain point in these long careers making sure you retain your position begins to take precedence over being an effective representative and advocate for your constituents.
A lifetime in the same office can also make some people arrogant, believing they cannot be beaten. And in many cases, they’re right.
Most challengers find it nearly impossible to unseat one of these “lifers” because they have decades upon decades of name recognition and local connections.
For these “lifers,” their entire career has been one long campaign for office.
How can a challenger be expected to gain more name recognition in a few short months of campaigning?
Unless a longtime incumbent has been involved in a major scandal like committing crime or causing a lawsuit to be brought against the community, most voters will likely return him or her to office because of their familiarity with the name or person.
Unfortunately, there are lots and lots of lazy voters out there. For them, it’s easiest to go with the name or person they’ve always known rather than actually study the issues or invest any time learning about the challenger(s). It’s sad, but true.
Sometimes there are no challengers to lifetime incumbents because potential candidates view it as a waste of time, money and resources to even run.
“Why should I bother to run? That guy’s been in office for 100 years. Nobody’s going to beat him.”
The result is uncontested elections which help weaken representative government by diminishing the choice given to voters.
I think the absolute maximum any local official should be allowed to serve is three terms in office – regardless of whether it’s a two, three or four year term. That’s long enough to be effective, but not entrenched, and still give some new faces a chance.
Don’t misunderstand me.
I have never believed that “change for change’s sake” is a good thing. I agree with the great 19th century Southern senator John Randolph who told his colleagues, “Change is not reform!”
But I do believe that effective representative government requires real choices be given to voters and lifetime incumbents are a hindrance to that.
Term limits eliminate the possibility of lifetime incumbents and open up opportunities for new people to serve in greater numbers.
You can’t really have a government “of the people, by the people and for the people” when certain people monopolize elected positions for a lifetime.

NOTE: This column is dedicated to Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Wendy Potts, who’s currently presiding over the case which could end OPFEC for good.
Your Honor, I’d like to make my case as to why the Oxford Public Fire and EMS Commission should be dissolved forever and ever.
Allow me to present Exhibit A – the Wednesday, January 21, 2004 meeting.
Never was there a spectacle so comical and yet so sad – except for maybe L. Brooks Patterson’s last road test.
OPFEC in their infinite stupidity and penchant for wastefulness decided to have three, count them THREE, attorneys look over a single proposed agreement.
Fire Chief Jack LeRoy asked the board to approve the North Oakland County Mutual Aid Interlocal Agreement, in which fire departments from 13 communities agree to cooperate in various areas with the common goal of enhancing public safety.
But the board didn’t feel comfortable doing that without an attorney’s review of the document.
Fair enough. A wise and prudent decision.
But here’s where it gets all OPFEC-ed up.
Commissioner Jerry Dywasuk, also a township trustee, suggested the township attorney review it because the interlocal agreement lists – in the opening paragraph – Oxford Township as one of the participants.
It was later pointed out that the signatory area lists OPFEC as the party and the agreement would actually be with OPFEC.
Village Manager Mark Slown then suggested the village and OPFEC attorneys also review the document.
Finally, the board agreed to have all three attorneys review it.
Let’s see, the township attorney charges $75 per hour, the village attorney $125 per hour and OPFEC’s legal counsel charges $175 an hour.
(Judging by those fees, I’d say attorneys charge more based on how screwed up the government is.)
So, we’re going to spend a whopping $375 per hour in legal fees to review a single document.
And people wonder why attorney bills are so astronomically high in Oxford government.
Heck, I wish I had a law degree so I could ride the Gravy Train too. Now leaving Penniless Taxpayerville. Next stop Fat City and Big Bucks Junction. All aboard!
Granted, OPFEC did do some good last week. Commissioners hired a full-time firefighter.
But even that positive action was tainted because it should have been done when it was originally requested by the fire chief in May 2003.
However, once again OPFEC in their infinite stupidity and reckless disregard for public safety rejected the chief’s request at that time.
OPFEC’s action at last week’s meeting didn’t add an extra full-timer to the department, it simply replaced one who had resigned in April 2003, which left the department short-handed for nearly nine months.
Good job hiring another full-time firefighter, but it should have been done last year.
Finally, there was the fine display of immaturity and profanity by Commissioner and village President Steve Allen at the end of the meeting.
Allen’s use of words that children usually get their mouths washed out with soap for had no place in a public meeting, especially one being broadcast on Oxford public access television.
I don’t care if he was angered by another commissioner’s sarcastic remarks, he could have expressed his criticism much, much more intelligently and professionally than he did.
In closing your Honor, may I just say that OPFEC is an abomination, disgrace and embarassment to the good people of Oxford.
It’s bad government. It wastes tax dollars. It uses naughty words. It’s cumbersome and ineffective.
Every OPFEC meeting becomes more and more like a FOX network reality TV show and less and less like a government body conducting the public’s business.
Your Honor, I and the good people of Oxford humbly request you kill the Twelve-headed Beast.
The Prosecution rests – but not comfortably.

I am by nature a lover of words.
As a writer, nothing gets me higher than finding that perfect word to describe something.
It feels right.
It sounds right.
It looks right.
It even tastes right (watch out for paper cuts).
Some of my favorite words include – oligarchy, brouhaha, totalitarian and happy hour.
But last week a reader turned me on to the what I believe is the best word I’ve ever seen in my life.
I fell in love with this word the minute I laid eyes on its five beautiful syllables.
Are you ready?
Here it is:
“KAKISTOCRACY”
It’s a noun that means, “Government by the worst people.”
In a Feb. 6, 1956 letter to Time magazine, a reader asked if the word meant “a government of parrots,” considering a “kaka” is a New Zealand parrot.
Although there are plenty of bird-brains in government, a kakistocracy has nothing to do with parrots.
The word originated as a combination of the Greek kakistos (superlative of kakos, which means “bad”) and the English suffix “-cracy,” meaning “form of government.”
At long last my five year search to find the perfect word to describe Oxford government is finally over.
No longer do I have to be content to use mundane words like incompetent, deceitful, lazy, moronic, greedy, selfish, stupid, dictatorial, secretive and arrogant to describe my local governments.
The Oxford Board of Education is a kakistocracy.
The Oxford Township Board is a kakistocracy.
The Oxford Village Council is a kakistocracy.
The Oxford Public Fire and EMS Commission is the Mother of All Kakistocracies.
They’re all kakistocracies.
And I can call the officials who run these governments “kakistocrats.” Forget about Republicans and Democrats, they’re all “kakistocrats” now.
I now feel complete, like a whole person again.
I’m living in kakistocracy.
You’re living in a kakistocracy.
We’re all living in a kakistocracy.
Look for me to use this word a lot in future columns.
I invite readers to do the same at government meetings, in letters to the editor, during polite dinner conversation or when having an intense debate with the many voices in your head.
Special thanks to the “anonymous” reader who sent me this word. You made my week.
Hats off to Channel 19
Last week Oxford Community Television Channel 19 began taping the school board meetings.
The meetings will be broadcast on Thursdays at 8:30 p.m. and Fridays at 1 a.m. and 1 p.m.
I want to thank Cable Commission Chairman Charles Kniffen and Station Manager Don Huegerich for making this happen so quickly.
Channel 19 is performing a true public service by broadcasting these meetings and I encourage parents, kids and taxpayers to watch them – very closely.
Good job cable guys.
By the way, I sincerely hope Addison Township and the villages of Oxford and Leonard decide to give the cable commission their rightful shares – i.e. the entire 5 percent – of the cable franchise fees.
That money should go toward developing and improving public access TV, not fattening these municipalities’ general funds.
Using that money for anything other than cable services constitutes a sneaky tax in my book.

Hypothetical situation – I surveyed 20 Oxford residents whether or not they liked me as a person.
Based on my survey I learned 16 out of 20 answered ‘yes.’
I proudly report in my column that a majority of the people in Oxford like me and I have an 80 percent approval rating.
How many of you would say that’s an accurate assessment?
How many of you would say that gets a good feeling for the pulse of the community?
How many of you would say I’m full of it like a Christmas goose?
The above hypothetical example has about as much validity and significance as the survey results reported by Oxford Village Manager Mark Slown in last week’s issue.
A pathetic 29 citizens out of 3,540 village residents (or 0.82 percent) answered a survey regarding the village.
Approximately 1,600 surveys were mailed out and it was also available on-line and at the village offices.
I found village officials’ positive reaction to the survey results both amusing and self-delusional – the same reaction I had to former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean’s failed campaign for president.
My favorite quote was from village President Steve Allen – “Even though it may not have been a scientific survey, it certainly gets a good feeling for the pulse out there.”
Based on those results, there is no pulse!
As Dr. Leonard McCoy would say, “It’s dead, Jim!”
I don’t think it was even alive to begin with.
My other favorite quote was from Slown, who said, “I don’t know too many elections where you get a 74 percent approval rating.”
The manager’s comment was based on the fact that 20 out of 27 survey respondents slightly to strongly agreed with the statement, “I like my local government.”
I’ve got news for you, that is NOT a 74 percent approval rating.
Having 20 residents out of a population of 3,540 agree with that statement is technically a 0.57 percent approval rating.
To be fair, we don’t know what the rest of the village thinks because a vast majority of the residents were either too lazy or too apathetic to answer the survey.
Why should a survey be any different than a typical village election?
Hardly anybody runs, votes or cares.
I find it curious village officials didn’t mention what the survey respondents had to say about the form of government they would like to live under.
Three people said “dissolve” or “disband” the village, two people said become a city and one person said remain a village as it has for 128 years.
Based strictly on the survey, the idea of cityhood was rejected 4-2 or by a 2-1 margin. Interesting. . .
But I’m not dumb enough to attach any real significance to that result because it only reflects six opinions out of 29 survey respondents out of 1,600 mailed-out surveys in a community of 3,540 people.
Who could be idiotic enough to draw any real conclusions from that kind of data?
Drop Black issue! Enough already!
I think Oxford Township Supervisor Bill Dunn is being stubborn to the point of pig-headness about his recommendation to reappoint George Black to the planning commission.
Twice now the issue of Black’s appointment has been failed by the township board. It failed in December by a vote of 3-2 and again in 3-3 deadlock in January.
Despite this, the supervisor has foolishly vowed he will bring the issue back to the board for a third vote or until he gets either four ‘yes’ or four ‘no’ votes.
Granted, Dunn is well within the bounds of the law to do this according to the township attorney, but he’s not acting within the bounds of common sense.
Black has served on the planning commission for more than 20 years. That’s way too long for any one official – appointed or elected – to serve.
There are two willing and able candidates – Christopher Bishop and Jack Curtis – who have applied for the planning commission, but were not selected.
I contantly hear officials complain about the lack of citizen volunteers willing to serve on these boards and committees, yet they’re willing to toss aside two perfectly good applicants in favor of someone who should have been replaced years ago.
Good job discouraging future participation.
Either Bishop or Curtis should be appointed instead of continuing to waste the township board’s time (and my patience) with this silly issue. There are plenty of other silly issues to waste time on.
I urge the supervisor to swallow his pride, drop the Black issue and move on. Enough is enough! One person on a board of nine is not worth all this grief.

One of the cornerstones of our allegedly free society is CHOICE.
It’s a beautiful little six-letter word that excites libertarians enough to make them soil their copies of Atlas Shrugged.
Liberals on the other hand have mixed feelings about choice.
When it comes to abortion, liberals say choice is good. When it comes to schools, liberals say choice is bad and start muttering about how vouchers are evil.
Conservatives also have mixed feelings about choice.
When it comes to privatizing government services like trash collection and food in prisons, conservatives say choice is good. When it comes to deciding what we watch on television or listen to on the radio, conservatives say choice is bad and call in the Federal Communications Commission to decide for us. (The chilling spirit of McCarthyism lives on in those Congressional Indecency Hearings.)
For the most part, I think choice is a good thing, especially in elections.
At its best, choice breeds a competition of ideas and a diverse selection of candidates.
At its worst, it leads to a choice between the lesser of two evils. At least there’s still a choice.
But in uncontested elections, there is no choice.
The outcomes are decided after one vote is cast.
Uncontested elections serve no purpose, weaken our representative system of government and worst of all – THEY’RE BORING!
I can stand a lot of things, but not boredom.
That’s why I’m encouraging Oxford Village voters to have a little fun in the Monday, March 8 election.
For the fourth consecutive year, the village council election is uncontested.
Incumbent council persons Dave Bailey and Renee Donovan are running unopposed. The election hasn’t even happened and they’ve already won.
Since the outcome is already decided, why not have a little giggle? A few laughs. A chuckle or two.
Let’s write in candidates name instead of voting for the two non-choices on the ballot.
These write-in candidates can be living or dead, fictional or real, cartoon or flesh-and-blood, residents or non-residents, famous or average, etc.
The only thing I ask is they be fun!
For instance, I’m voting for Eric Cartman (a rude, opinionated, foul-mouthed, big-boned fourth-grader who lives in the cartoon town of South Park, Colorado) and Charo (the 1970s/80s-era celebrity who appeared on the Love Boat more times than the cruise ship itself).
I admire Cartman’s take-no-prisoners style of dealing with people and his unique ability to eat his bodyweight in Cheesy Poofs. I also share his deep hatred of Tree Huggin’ Hippies.
I admire Charo’s gratuitous use of the phrase “Cuchi, cuchi!” and the fact she appeared on the Love Boat as “April Lopez” a total of eight times. Twice in Season Four (episodes #93 and #99).
Candidates Cartman and Charo would also give a voice to the two most under-represented and oppressed minorities in Oxford – obese cartoon characters and Spanish-speaking singers/musicians/comedians/actresses who wear low-cut dresses.
To those who would say it’s wrong to make a mockery of our local election process, I say why?
Constantly having elections with no challengers is a joke anyway – why not treat it like one?
At least now, I’ve given myself – and hopefully others – a choice, a fun alternative in a boring and sad election that epitomizes our apathy and ignorance.
Remember your vote can’t and won’t make a difference, so be sure to get to the polls early on March 8. Relax, the future of the village is not in your hands.

In politics and the court of public opinion, perception and appearances loom large.
The way an elected official or public body’s actions are perceived is just as important – if not more so – as the reality.
Although it appears to be perfectly legal for Pat Fitchena to serve as the executive director of the North Oakland Transportation Authority, I don’t believe it looks good to the public or reflects well on either Fitchena, NOTA or the Oxford Township Board. (For the background see my page 1 story.)
Let me start out by saying that I like Pat a lot and I think she’s been a good representative for the people of Oxford, – especially the Average Joes and local business owners – over the last 16 years.
She’s honest. She’s not afraid to speak her mind. She’s a hard-worker. She’s tough, but fair, and has a good, caring heart that’s as big as all outdoors. I know Pat cares about doing what’s right as much as I do.
That being said, I don’t think Fitchena should continue to serve as both a township trustee and NOTA director in a permanent fashion.
Her taking the NOTA job for a 90-day interim period was perfectly acceptable and I have absolutely no problem with it. She should be allowed to continue as director until that temporary appointment expires April 15.
But after April 15 she should choose which job she wants more – township trustee or NOTA director.
Granted, it appears to be legal for her to serve in both capacities, according to township attorney Chris Kaye.
There’s a state constitutional exception or provision that specifically allows Fitchena to do both jobs because NOTA is an intergovernmental body or interlocal authority.
Kaye stated in this case the state constitutional exception “trumps” the Incompatible Public Offices Act and the law governing conflicts of interest, to the extent those laws could ever force her to give up either position.
It’s my opinion that Kaye’s opinion is correct and the state constitution does trump laws made by the state Legislature. However, just because it’s legal, doesn’t mean it’s the correct or wise thing to do.
I don’t think it ever looks kosher to the public when an elected official is given a salaried position in a government agency over which the governing body the elected official serves on has some degree of oversight.
In this case, the Oxford Township Board votes on NOTA’s annual budget (as do the other communities involved) and has the power to pull out of the authority any time it wishes.
It’s true Fitchena could abstain from votes on such issues, but some could say she still has some degree of influence with her fellow officials by virtue of her seat.
Also, the specter of “political patronage” could raise its ugly head. Some members of the public could say Fitchena was given the job as a political favor which could be later traded in for a vote on a future issue.
An accusation of “cronyism” could be levied. People could suspect Fitchena was given the job strictly because of the friendships and associations she’s made as a township trustee.
I’m not saying any of this is true, but perceptions and appearances must be seriously considered, especially by elected officials. I would hate to see unfair and untrue accusations hurled at Fitchena, which could make her and the township board look bad.
We’ve had enough controversy.
The glue that binds the relationship between elected officials and the public is trust. Anything – be it real or perceived – that damages that trust is harmful to our representative system of government.
Elected officials must always be conscious of how their actions will be perceived by the public.
For much of the voting public, what they think about an elected official is the reality, the facts be damned.
Although the appearance of impropriety is not nearly as bad as actually committing an impropriety, the effects of both can be equally damaging to the official, to the public and to the trust that hopefully exists between them.
As I stated earlier, Fitchena should be allowed to finish her interim directorship of NOTA until April 15, but if she takes the position permanently, she should step down as township trustee. It’s the right move for her, the township board and the public.
Now a few quick words about her main critics on this issue – Oxford Township Trustee Jerry Dywasuk and Orion Township.
I find it interesting that the attorneys for Oxford and Addison townships and the villages of Leonard and Oxford, all agree it’s legal for Fitchena to serve as both township trustee and NOTA director.
I find it interesting the only NOTA community to find anything legally wrong with Fitchena’s dual roles is headed by Orion Township Supervisor Jerry Dywasuk, Sr. – father of Oxford Township Trustee Jerry Dywasuk, Jr., who’s adamantly opposed to her having both jobs. Hmmm. . .
I find it interesting Oxford Township was willing to openly share its attorney opinion letter, but Orion’s letter is concealed under attorney/client privilege, something which can easily be lifted by the client, in this case Orion Township.
I’m inclined to say that Trustee Dywasuk’s opposition to Fitchena having the NOTA job is at least partly based on SOUR GRAPES over Oakland County Sheriff’s Deputy Randy Praski’s failed bid for trusteeship in 2000.
It’s believed by some that an Attorney General’s opinion stating being a sheriff’s deputy and township trustee (in a community that contracts with the sheriff’s department for police service) are incompatible offices was the main reason for Praski’s defeat.
But the fact is those public offices are legally incompatible because the sheriff’s department is NOT an intergovernmental body and is therefore NOT covered by the state constitutional exception as NOTA is.
Praski lost. Get over it Trustee Dywasuk.

Safety paths are a good thing.
They provide pedestrians, young and old, with a safe area to walk, bicycle, run, jog and roller-blade along side busy roads.
They allow people to get from Point A to Point B without using a motorized vehicle and without becoming road kill.
I’ve got no problem with Oxford Township wanting to build more of them. As newly convicted felon Martha Stewart would say, ‘It’s a good thing.?
However, I do have a problem with township officials looking into paying for more safety paths through a dedicated millage.
Township officials are considering placing a safety path millage proposal on the November 2004 ballot.
The township board will discuss the issue at a future meeting. Officials tabled it at the March 24 meeting as there were only four board members present and they wished to bring the issue before a full board.
According to Treasurer Joe Ferrari, who chairs the safety path committee, no proposed millage rate has been determined yet as the committee is looking for direction from the township board.
I sincerely hope the direction from the township board is NO dedicated millage, NO ballot issue.
If the township wants more safety paths, let it find the money within its own budget first, before rushing to ask the voters to approve yet another new tax.
I’m sure there’s some extra money (i.e. waste, perks, endless attorney bills, $50,000 payments to settle lawsuits from ex-employees, etc.) floating around in that big ol? budget which could be used for safety paths.
Let’s see what can be collected from the existing budget before the township attempts to milk the cash cows (taxpayers) at the polls.
Government has rough, cold hands and taxpayers? udders are pretty sore these days. Moo.
Also, look into collecting private donations from businesses, service groups and individuals.
If we can raise nearly $160,000 for a giant playground, surely there are folks willing to donate some bucks for safety paths ? something of genuine importance to community.
If such a safety path millage proposal does unfortunately make it to the November ballot, I sincerely hope it will be asked ONLY of unincorporated township residents, NOT village residents too.
Ferrari told me they’re looking to levy such a millage over the ‘entire township,? including the village, because the ‘eventual goal? is to link the township safety path system with the existing village sidewalk system.
Village residents already have a sidewalk system, which they have paid for and continue to pay for.
Village residents should not be subjected to another tax burden, so the township can build what it lacks and what the village already has.
In my book, that’s not only unfair, it amounts to double taxation.
Speaking as an overtaxed village resident myself, I can say I would most definitely vote NO on any safety path millage.
And you can count on me to encourage others to do the same.
I hope township officials will take what I’ve said to heart.
See what you can do with what you already have before you ask for more.
And remember ? it’s an election year.

It’s been a long time ? at least 10 minutes or so ? since a public official has angered me as much as Janet Thomas has.
Words cannot even begin to describe the sheer loathing and utter contempt the current vice president of the Oakland Schools Board of Education generates within me.
Much like a freeloading in-law or sloppy drunk party guest, Thomas doesn’t know when it’s time to leave. Worse still, she’s trying to make it seem like she’s doing us a favor by staying.
Even though all the other ISD board members who oversaw the reign of King James Redmond (Tony Rothschild, Helen Prutow, DiAnne Cagle Leitermann and Carol Borich) have resigned, Thomas remains stubborn and defiant to the end ? much like Marie Antoinette.
‘I made a commitment when I was elected the first time. They (the board) need someone with historically accurate knowledge. I don’t think any board needs five brand new members,? said Thomas in the March 3 edition of The Clarkston News.
(Imagine if Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein refused to leave office on the grounds that Iraq’s new interim governing council needed someone with ‘historically accurate knowledge.?)
Don’t mistake Thomas? attitude for fortitude in the face of controversy or living up to her responsibilities as a public official. It’s all arrogance, pure arrogance.
It’s arrogance because she either doesn’t or can’t understand that as an ISD board member she is ultimately responsible for all the deception, mismanagement, wasting of tax dollars and alleged wrongdoings and alleged crimes that went on under Redmond’s administration.
She was one of Redmond’s bosses. She was elected by the county’s 28 school boards to oversee him and the ISD. It was her job to know what was going on, ask questions, request documents, carefully review bills, etc.
As the owner of a Clarkston-based accounting and tax service, Thomas, more than any other ISD board member, should have been aware of the misspending and alleged embezzlement.
The buck was supposed to stop with Thomas and her fellow board members. Unfortunately, the ISD board members served as mindless rubber stamps as opposed to true overseers of the district and representatives of the people.
Also, we’re not talking about one or two silly, little incidents here and there. There was a clear pattern of on-going gross abuse for years.
Either Thomas was a willing accomplice to all of it or she was so totally blind and embarrassingly incompetent, she honestly didn’t know what was going on ? which still isn’t a defense given her oversight role as a board member.
The bottom-line is Thomas did not do her duty as an ISD board member. She failed miserably, along with the other board members at the time.
Thomas failed the 28 school districts of Oakland County. She failed the school boards, administrators and teachers of Oakland County.
Thomas failed the students and parents of Oakland County. She failed the taxpayers of Oakland County.
Janet Thomas is a complete and total failure as an ISD board member. She is an impediment to any true reform on the board.
Thomas is part of the problem, not the solution. She belongs to the ISD’s corrupt past, not its hopefully honest future.
It’s way past time for Thomas to go. And since she won’t resign and exit the political stage gracefully, it’s time to drag her out ? feet first if necessary.
Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox last week issued an opinion stating intermediate school district board members CAN BE RECALLED!
House Bill 4338, which would make the recall of ISD board members a clearly defined part of state law, was recently approved by the state House.
For the sake of ‘the children,? the recall of Janet Thomas should and must begin immediately.
Send a message that We The People will not tolerate this any more!
C.J. Carnacchio is the editor of The Oxford Leader, another SPI publication. He’s also a fed-up Oakland Schools taxpayer who’s mad as hell and not going to take it anymore. Carnacchio can be reached via e-mail at shermanpub@aol.com.

It’s been a long time ? at least 10 minutes or so ? since a public official has angered me as much as Janet Thomas has.
Words cannot even begin to describe the sheer loathing and utter contempt the current vice president of the Oakland Schools Board of Education generates within me.
Much like a freeloading in-law or sloppy drunk party guest, Thomas doesn’t know when it’s time to leave. Worse still, she trys to make it seem like she’s doing us a favor by staying.
Even though all the other ISD board members who oversaw the reign of King James Redmond (Tony Rothschild, Helen Prutow, DiAnne Cagle Leitermann and Carol Borich) have resigned, Thomas remains stubborn and defiant to the end ? much like Marie Antoinette.
‘I made a commitment when I was elected the first time. They (the board) need someone with historically accurate knowledge. I don’t think any board needs five brand new members,? said Thomas in the March 3 edition of The Clarkston News.
(Imagine if Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein refused to leave office on the grounds that Iraq’s new interim governing council needed someone with ‘historically accurate knowledge.?)
Don’t mistake Thomas? attitude for fortitude in the face of controversy or living up to her responsibilities as a public official. It’s all arrogance, pure arrogance.
It’s arrogance because she either doesn’t or can’t understand that as an ISD board member she is ultimately responsible for all the deception, mismanagement, wasting of tax dollars, alleged wrongdoings and alleged crimes that went on under Redmond’s administration.
She was one of Redmond’s bosses. She was elected by the county’s 28 school boards to oversee him and the ISD. It was her job to know what was going on, ask questions, request documents, carefully review bills, etc.
As the owner of a Clarkston-based accounting and tax service, Thomas, more than any other ISD board member, should have been aware of the misspending and alleged embezzlement.
The buck was supposed to stop with Thomas and her fellow board members. Unfortunately, the ISD board members served as mindless rubber stamps as opposed to true overseers of the district and representatives of the people.
Also, we’re not talking about one or two silly, little incidents here and there. There was a clear pattern of on-going gross abuse for years.
Either Thomas was a willing accomplice to all of it or she was so totally blind and embarrassingly incompetent, she honestly didn’t know what was going on ? which still isn’t a defense given her oversight role as a board member.
The bottom-line is Thomas did not do her duty as an ISD board member. She failed miserably, along with the other board members at the time.
Thomas failed the 28 school districts of Oakland County. She failed the school boards, administrators and teachers of Oakland County.
Thomas failed the students and parents of Oakland County. She failed the taxpayers of Oakland County.
Janet Thomas is a complete and total failure as an ISD board member. She is an impediment to any true reform on the board. Thomas is part of the problem, not the solution. She belongs to the ISD’s corrupt past, not its hopefully honest future.
It’s way past time for Thomas to go. And since she won’t resign and exit the political stage gracefully, it’s time to drag her out ? feet first if necessary.
Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox last week issued an opinion stating intermediate school district board members CAN BE RECALLED!
House Bill 4338, which would make the recall of ISD board members a clearly defined part of state law, was recently approved by the state House.
For the sake of ‘the children,? the recall of Janet Thomas should and must begin immediately.
Send a message that We The People will not tolerate this any more!

Reality check ? Would you spend about $47,500 to have a gaggle of lawyers tell you to take money out of your left pocket and put it in your right pocket?
Oxford Village and Township did.
The above analogy is the easiest way to understand how the village and township settled their dispute over allegedly improperly spent tax monies. (See story on page 1.)
After more than a year of the village attorney and council demanding the township return hundreds of thousands of tax dollars to village taxpayers, in turns out all the township had to do to satisfy the village was repay township internal funds with state revenue-sharing monies and ordinance enforcement revenues.
Go figure.
What a colossal waste of time, effort and tax dollars by our so-called leaders. Let’s look at the results:
n The attorneys for both sides are richer with tax dollars.
n Tax money that could have been spent on silly, trivial little things like roads, public services, parks, teen centers, was instead spent on lawyers.
n The village taxpayers (the supposed victims) who were allegedly wronged will receive no rebate checks in the mail.
n According to the consent judgement agreed to and signed by both parties, the village “does not consent, acknowledge or accept that it is the proper party in this litigation” and the township “does not consent, acknowledge or accept that any money is owed to the village or its taxpayers.” Was anybody involved?
n Money from state revenue-sharing and local ordinance enforcement that would have ended up in the township’s General Fund and Building and Site Fund anyway, will be now be put there over a five-year period to offset the amount allegedly misspent ($416,000) by the township for police services in 2000.
n The township will spend this $416,000 as it normally would have, with part of the money financing the township’s operations (General Fund) and the rest be saved to someday build a new township hall (Building and Site Fund).
So what was the purpose of this costly little exercise in government futility? I have no idea.
What was end result? Nothing.
How is the outcome of the settlement different than if nothing had been done in the first place? It’s not, except for all the attorney bills and a little money shuffled around internally.
Don’t worry, if you’re thinking none of this makes any sense, it’s because it doesn’t.
However, if you think it you think it makes perfect sense, congratulations, you have a future in government ? or as a lawyer.
What still amazes me about the whole thing is the village’s assertion that’s it was not the “proper party” in this whole legal mess.
According to a press release from village President Steve Allen, it was the council’s “belief that it was not the correct party to assert or compromise the rights of its Oxford Township taxpayers (i.e. village taxpayers).”
Wait a minute, didn’t the village spent $16,685 in taxpayer money on the high-powered law firm Miller-Canfield to determine how much the township allegedly improperly spent and allegedly owed village taxpayers?
Didn’t Miller-Canfield send a letter to the township demanding money on behalf of the village in August 10, 2001? The letter clearly stated, “We hereby demand payment of such amount, forthwith. The township should forward payment directly to the village (emphasis added).”
Didn’t the council pass a resolution on Sept. 24, 2001 requesting the township repay the allegedly misspent monies directly to village taxpayers? At that same meeting, Allen stated for the record, “We must get the message out to the public that we folks (the council) are willing to get their money back. It’s their money and we recognize it’s their money and it will be coming back to them.”
Didn’t the village spend thousands of dollars in taxpayer money on village attorney Bob Bunting to also handle the whole matter?
For the village to say it’s not the “proper” or “correct” party is utterly ridiculous and simply not true.
If the village government isn’t the “proper” or “correct” party, all the tax dollars spent on Miller-Canfield and Bunting should be returned to the village coffers.
How can the village claim that it’s not the “correct party to assert or compromise the rights of its Oxford Township taxpayers” yet spend village tax money on lawyers to do just that?
How can the village expend tens of thousands of tax dollars on a matter it now insists it was never a party to?
Oh well, the whole matter is over with and all is right with the world again.
The lawyers are richer. The taxpayers are poorer. And government is at fault.
In our ever-changing world and fast-paced modern society, it’s nice to know some things stay the same. Why doesn’t that comfort me?

“Hey Wang, what’s with the pictures? It’s a parking lot!” ? Comedian Rodney Dangerfield in “Caddy Shack”
While a I wholeheartedly agree with the need for additional parking in downtown Oxford, I must disagree with a few aspects of the Oxford Community Development Authority’s (OCDA) concept plan to reconfigure, resurface and expand the southeast parking quadrant.
Three elements of the plan immediately struck me as completely unnecessary and a total waste of tax money and resources.
The first is the “pocket park” that’s depicted on the concept plan right behind the Oxford Cinema 7, facing Stanton St.
The concept plan calls for a small park space consisting of a gazebo, benches and trees.
First of all, what a lousy, ugly, silly location for a park.
Who wants scenic views of the back of a movie theater and the Oxford Bank parking lot and drive-thru facilities directly across Stanton? Sounds breathtaking.
Second, the proposed park area should be used to provide parking, which by the way constitutes a portion of the land’s current use.
Great idea, eliminate some parking to put in a park in a downtown where one of the main complaints is the lack of parking.
You don’t need a fancy taxpayer-financed master’s degree in government to see it’s a bad idea.
To be fair, the plan does increase the total number of parking spaces in the southeast quadrant, but many of those new spaces are located much further away from the businesses than these current parking spaces tenatively slated to become a park.
Most people don’t enjoy walking long ways through parking lots and try to park as close to the businesses as possible. Some of them do it for safety reasons. Some for physical reasons. Many do it out of pure laziness. (I fall into the latter category.)
If you have parking spaces close to businesses, you don’t eliminate them, especially not for a park.
Also, why develop a new park when the downtown area already has the extremely under-utilized and under-appreciated Centennial Park?
The OCDA should be working to attract more people to Centennial ? which already has a gazebo ? rather than trying to turn existing parking spaces into another park.
It’s interesting to note that the owners of Parkside Dairy, John and Holly Thomas, have done more to bring people to Centennial Park ? and downtown Oxford ? than the OCDA has.
Another example of why if you want something done, look to the private sector, not government.
Parkside’s “Concerts in the Park” series attracted people to Centennial every Thursday evening for 11 consecutive weeks this past summer.
How many times did the OCDA bring visitors to Centennial Park this summer?
Once ? the Taste of Oxford at Celebrate Oxford.
My advice, nix the park, leave the existing parking ? maybe even increase the number of spaces in that area ? and focus on improving and cultivating activities in Centennial Park. Use what you already have before you consider building more.
Let’s move on from parks to the arts.
The concept plan also calls for a “sculptural centerpiece” to be located in the center of a proposed circular drop-off area behind Lynne’s Hallmark, Creative Embroidery and Victoria’s Delights.
Why do we need a sculpture in a parking lot? It’s not a museum or an historical landmark. It’s a place to store your vehicles while you shop, eat, see a movie, etc.
I’m sure the planners will argue the sculpture is designed to beautify the downtown, increase Oxford’s overall aesthetic value and make people feel good inside, but again, it’s a parking lot. Let’s be realistic.
The taxpayers ? particularly the merchants who will most likely pay a special assessment for this project ? should not be forced to pay for a sculpture in a parking lot. After all, it’s a parking lot.
From the arts we go to trees.
The concept plan calls for a bunch of trees to be placed on islands throughout the parking lot.
I bet if those islands and trees were eliminated from the plan, a few more additional parking spaces could be squeezed in and a lot of tax money could be saved. The southeast quadrant needs more parking spaces, not trees.
The bottom-line is when motorists go into a parking lot, they want and expect to find spaces. Businesses want their customers to be able to easily find available parking. The main objectives of the southeast quadrant improvement plan should be to increase the total number of parking spaces and repair the deteriorated lot.
Nobody cares about having islands with trees, “pocket parks” with gazebos and “sculptural centerpieces” in their parking lots except pie-in-the-sky planners and officials out of touch with reality and who don’t have to pick up the tab for their grandiose ideas.

Every time I see one of those Disney movies where a group of kids band together to fight City Hall, it never fails to make me cringe. Allow me to explain.
We’re all familiar with the movie where the out-of-touch City Council wants to sell a vacant piece of land to an evil developer who wants to build a new subdivision or high-rise on it.
The only problem is it’s the same land some local kids are using as a playground or have built a clubhouse on.
So the kids band together, march into City Hall, make a tear-jerking presentation and convince the elected officials to change their old-fogy minds.
In fact, the presentation is so good it convinces the evil developer to mend his greedy ways and offer to turn the land into something for the kids, free of charge. Everyone cheers and hugs, the day is saved and the credits roll. So why does this type of film bother me?
It ignores realities, circumstances, regulations, local ordinances and real-life political processes.
It oversimplifies the way government really works and sets up unreal or false expectations in kids’ minds that could someday lead to severe disillusionment with the political process that underpins our republic.
That’s what I’m worried is going to happen to the members of the Rockin’ Excellent and Determined Youth (READY) youth who are working to convert the old fire hall into a teen center.
The way it looks right now, this teen center might not get off the ground for a number of reasons, including funding and zoning ordinance requirements regarding parking and setbacks.
I’m not saying the teen center’s definitely not going to happen, but the parking and setback requirements appear to make it highly unlikely at this point.
It’s highly unlikely a variance will be granted to resolve the parking issue (i.e. the severe lack of it). It’s also highly unlikely another variance would be granted to allow for a teen center with 7.5-foot and 10-foot setbacks from abutting residential areas, when the zoning ordinance requires a minimum of 100-foot setbacks for indoor recreational facilities.
(Note: There’s a reason we have required setbacks and one of them is noise. A teen center will most likely generate a lot of noise, which could become a nuisance to residents living in such close proximity.)
Variances are not granted “just because” someone wants one. Certain very strict, very narrow requirements, outlined in the zoning ordinance, must be met.
This isn’t just my opinion. I’ve had a few officials tell me in private that this teen center isn’t going to happen, but they aren’t willing to say so publicly.
What I don’t want to see happen is for township or village officials to give READY any preferential treatment, special consideration or bending of the rules because of the nature of the project or the fact that a group of local teens is behind it.
I’m not saying this has been done or even will be done, but I can certainly see where officials not wishing to look like ‘bad guys’ or truly believing in the teen center project themselves, may be tempted to treat READY differently than the average applicant.
When discussing the fire hall ownership issue at the Jan. 14 village council meeting, Manager Mark Slown said he wanted the matter settled because “it may block progress toward completion of the teen center later, harming the morale of the READY crew and other young people in the community. This is a risk we must not take.” Slown told council if the teen center proposal “blows up in our faces” there will be a “bunch of unhappy kids and parents.”
Slown’s comments make it seem like the teen center absolutely must happen, no matter what.
Although Slown’s sentiments and personal belief in the project are admirable, they’re not appropriate.
If we really want the community’s youth to learn about local government through this teen center project, they must learn about things like complying with local zoning ordinances. They must be treated like any other applicant wishing to develop something in the village.
One of the major underpinnings of our political system is that everyone must be treated fairly and equally under the law. No exceptions. But along with fair and equal treatment comes the possibility of rejection and disappointment, as with anything in life.
Shielding the READY teens from these more unpleasant aspects of the process for fear of “harming (their) morale” would do them a great disservice and deprive them of a valuable learning experience.
Contrary to popular belief in our modern feel-good society, self-esteem is not the most important thing in life. One of the greatest lessons in life is “You can’t always get what you want.”
If turning the old fire hall into a teen center can’t happen because of a lack of parking or setbacks which are 90 to 92.5 feet short of the legal requirements, READY should not feel discouraged or give up.
READY could pursue a ballot initiative asking voters to approve money for the construction of a teen center somewhere else. Or they could find another vacant building in Oxford to convert into a teen center. Both are viable alternatives.
This teen center project is a great real-life opportunity for young people to get involved in local government and see how it really works. I just want our local officials to treat them like everyone else, equally and fairly, even if that means the old fire hall can’t become a teen center. And if it can’t, READY shouldn’t quit.
Good job West Bloomfield!
Bravo to the West Bloomfield Board of Education for passing a resolution last week speaking out against the Oakland Schools scandal, thus breaking the “conspiracy of silence” among the county’s 28 districts.
It’s nice to see that not all school boards are filled with cowards and collaborators. Finally, a group of school officials who actually know the difference between right and wrong.
In a letter to the editor published in the Feb. 3 Oakland Press, Gabriel Kowalski, of Oxford, asked, “And why aren’t the local school districts raising their voices over the squandering of tax dollars?”
Mr. Kowalski I suggest you contact the Oxford Board of Education and ask them. I suggested they speak out on this very issue three weeks ago. Since then, their silence has been deafening.

Some suggestions for school cuts
A Feb. 17 press release from Oxford Area Community Schools stated that in response to decreased state funding, rising operational costs and anticipated budget shortfalls ?
“All buildings and every district department (elementary schools, middle school, high school, athletics, transportation, maintenance and grounds, technology, special education, administration, support staff, food services, curriculum support and administrative support) has been asked to identify about 10 percent in cuts to their particular areas in order to achieve a balanced budget for next year.”
I have a few suggestions to help the district save a huge chunk of money.
First, cut the $34,000 in bonuses the district’s top four administrators ? superintendent, assistant superintendent, executive director of curriculum, executive director of human resources ? will be paid at the end of the 2002-03 school year and permanently eliminate such bonuses from future administrator contracts.
When finances are tight, you don’t give bonuses. This is a school district, not K-mart.
Next, the top four administrators should each take a temporary 10 percent salary cut ? just until the district’s financial difficulties are over.
The Big Four currently earn a grand total of $406,228 per year, excluding bonuses.
A 10 percent salary reduction would save the district $40,623 annually.
Then, let’s cut the combined $11,400 per year in monthly stipends the top four administrators receive for “car mileage.”
Finally, eliminate all nonessential, noneducational positions such as the Director of Communications post, which presently commands a salary of about $51,000 annually plus benefits.
All these cuts I’ve suggested are at the very top (Central Administration) and in no way hinder the actual day-to-day education of Oxford students.
Armed with a calculator and some common sense, I’m proposing $137,023 in budget cuts that don’t affect the classroom ? the place that matters most.
The press release stated that “As Oxford Schools looks for more ways to streamline, save money and institute possible cost-effective processes, Superintendent Virginia Brennan-Kyro has emphasized that the decisions made must be in keeping with the district mission, and do what’s best for our kids by providing a quality education for every student.”
I feel my cost-cutting suggestions are in keeping with the spirit and letter of the above statement and ask school officials to consider implementing them.
Let’s not just talk about doing what’s best for our kids’ education, let’s actually do it.
Let’s cut from the top-down, not the bottom-up.
Three cheers for private enterprise
We’ve heard a lot lately about how Oxford needs a teen center, a skate park, more sports fields, more recreational opportunities, more stuff for young people to do, etc. We’ve also heard a lot about paying for these needs with a mixture of tax dollars, private donations and special fund-raisers.
However, in all this community discussion, I hadn’t heard the one solution that could fulfill all these needs without costing anyone ? except for users ? a single dime. Until now.
It seems that a private investment company backed by a wealthy investor wants to build a for-profit sports/recreation center in Oxford Township on M-24 (See page 1 story). What perfect timing.
Oxford has a need for more sports, recreational and youth-oriented facilities.
A private investor has the capital to build a facility in Oxford to meet that need.
In return, the investor wants to make his money back, plus a profit.
It’s basic supply and demand. It’s the free market. I’m sure the 18th-century economist Adam Smith is smiling somewhere.
I applaud the efforts of the Metamora-based Mack Investment Group, Inc. and investor Anthony Calliea to build something that will directly benefit Oxford and its youth while hopefully turning a profit.
Best of all, it doesn’t involve government or tax dollars. Imagine that.
Plus, a privately owned and operated sports/recreation center means more local jobs, more tax revenue for local governments and a major attraction to draw people to Oxford.
Private enterprise is a beautiful thing.
Job opening for former police chief
Through our sister newspaper The Clarkston News, I learned that the City of the Village of Clarkston’s police department is searching for a new police chief.
When I read that, one name immediately sprang to mind ? Gary Ford.
Ford’s been out of work since Dec. 31, 1999, his legal bills have been piling up since then, he was denied disability payments from MERS and now he’s suing Oxford for $40,523.
Obviously, the poor man needs some money, but just can’t get back on his feet.
Gary’s either too proud to ask for help or maybe he just never learned how.
So Gary, if you’re reading this (and you know you are), give the Clarkston city offices a call at 625-1559 and apply for that police chief position.
Let me know if you need a reference letter.
No need to thank me.
Helping a down-on-his-luck, publicly-disgraced, ex-police chief facing a criminal trial is its own reward.

I hate to admit it but I must agree with Governor Jennifer Granholm and even applaud her actions.
In light of the state’s $2 billion budget shortfall and the large number of spending cuts ahead, Granholm said she will cut her own $177,000 annual salary by 10 percent to lead by example, according to the Feb. 24 Oakland Press.
She’s also encouraging state legislators to take a pay cut as well.
Wait just a minute!
A government official is suggesting her own salary be cut by 10 percent because the state’s in a big financial mess.
A government official, who’s preparing to make massive budgets cuts that will affect the lives of many people, wants to lead by example by first cutting $17,700 a year from her own pocket.
A government official is urging other government officials to take a pay cut.
Can this be real? Did a Democrat actually say that?
I sure hope the Oxford school district’s top four administrators are reading this as they face their own budget shortfalls and spending cuts.
Maybe the Educrats will learn a lesson from Granholm. A 10 percent pay cut has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it guys?
I was also forced to agree with another Democrat, Rep. Andy Meisner of Ferndale, who told the Press, “We’re asking people across the state to tighten their belts so I think it’s only fair for us to do the same.”
Egads, fiscal logic from a Democrat! Isn’t that a sign of the Apocalypse? Run for your lives!
Not to be outdone, some Republicans joined in.
Rep. Brian Palmer (R-Romeo) introduced an amendment to the state Constitution that would require a 10 percent pay cut for top state elected officials, lawmakers and Michigan Supreme Court justices in the fiscal year after Michigan’s “rainy day” or emergency fund falls below $250 million.
If approved by lawmakers, the constitutional amendment could be considered by voters in 2004.
Senate Majority Leader Ken Sikkema (R-Wyoming) said he will reduce his pay by 3 percent if state employee unions agree to forgo a planned 3-percent raise to avoid massive layoffs. He urged his fellow legislators to do the same.
Of course, I shouldn’t have to write a column complimenting government officials for wanting to take a pay cut during hard economic times.
It should be a given. It should be automatic.
It should be the first thing on the chopping block whenever it’s time for serious spending cuts by any government unit ? federal, state, county, city, township, village or SCHOOL DISTRICT.
Too often public officials aren’t willing to lead by example when it comes to cutting their own salaries, perks and bonuses.
Most officials are perfectly willing to cut services, cut programs, cut personnel and cut others’ wages and benefits, but when the axe nears their own pocketbooks, they come up with a million excuses (all of them lame) as to why they should keep making the big bucks while everyone and everything around them takes a hit.
I’m glad to see Granholm and some responsible state lawmakers ? both Republican and Democrat ? are willing to make cuts that directly affect them, not just others. That’s true leadership ? a quality sadly lacking in all levels of government these days.
As for the state lawmakers who have attacked Granholm and her call for pay cuts, I say nuts to them.
State Sen. Mike “Go Mike Go!” Bishop (R-Rochester) said Granholm is “trivializing” the budget situation by calling for a “pittance reduction of official’s salaries.”
“I think it’s political pandering at its best,” he told the Press. Then Bishop turned around and said, “Whatever we decide to do (for reducing salaries), I’ll be the first in line to do it.”
Mr. Bishop, does your mouth ever get sore from talking out of both sides of it?
Bishop’s comments represent mindless partisanship at its best and political double-speak at its worst.
I’m a much more conservative Republican than Bishop and even I can admit Granholm’s call for pay cuts is logical, responsible and an example of real leadership. I don’t like Granholm or what she stands for and I didn’t vote for her in the general election, but I can still recognize a good idea when I hear one, no matter who came up with it.
Some lawmakers said cutting their salaries would be largely symbolic considering the extent of the state budget mess, but meaningful nonetheless.
My grandparents and parents taught me that every penny counts ? especially when money’s tight ? because in the end, it all adds up.
Many families live by that same motto when it comes to their own simple budgets.
Government should live by it too, especially since the money in their budgets is OUR money.
Whether it’s clipping coupons to lower the family grocery bill or shaving a few thousand dollars off government officials’ salaries to help balance the budget, it all adds up in the end.
I hope Oxford Schools’ top administrators remember that every penny counts and take a cue from Granholm’s leadership. If you’re going to cut others, you’d better include yourself.
Thank you Oxford AMVETS
I wish to extend my sincere gratitude and a heartfelt thank you to Oxford AMVETS Post 108 for presenting me with a plaque last Wednesday to show their appreciation for the articles and photos I’ve published about them (see page 4).
Their plaque meant more to me than most of the other awards I’ve received in life because it came from brave souls who have served their country in the armed forces with honor, dignity and courage.
It was their sacrifices and devotion to duty that made possible the freedom of the press that I enjoy every week. For that, I am eternally grateful.

Thumbs up to the Oxford Village Council for voting not to participate in the North Oakland Household Hazardous Waste Consortium (see story page 5).
Village officials correctly reasoned that because the Oxford Township Board voted to join the Consortium in November 2002, village residents will be able participate in the program as township residents and taxpayers.
It would have been a waste of money and redundant for the village to pay the fixed $1,092 annual administrative fee to participate.
Granted, because of the village’s decision, the township will be required to pay its $4,140 administrative fee plus the village’s $1,092.
But that’s okay. Village residents pay 0.95-mill every year to the township so it’s not like the they’re getting a freebie.
Why shouldn’t village residents pay for this new service through their township taxes as opposed to their village taxes?
Based on economies of scale, paying the $1,092 fee through the township makes more fiscal sense because it’s being drawn from a much larger tax base and budget than the village has on its own.
As for the $35 per car fee, it doesn’t matter whether the township decides to pay it all, have residents pay it all or some combination where both pay a portion. Village residents will either pay for it from their own pockets if they choose to participate or through their township taxes.
I’m glad council saw the logic of all this, followed the lead of every other village in the Consortium’s coverage area and decided to participate through its township.
Manager Mark Slown argued it might be to the village’s advantage to participate in the Consortium and pay the fee so the village could get a “seat at the table,” meaning council would be able to select a representative to the Consortium Board to help oversee the program.
The manager stated that going through the township “relinquishes all control of the service to another government.” The township is not some alien government.
Village residents are township residents who help elect township board members. The township board represents each and every village resident.
The village already has a “seat at the table” through it’s township representative (Shirley Clancy) to the Consortium Board.
It would have been a waste of tax money on the village’s part to pay $1,092 a year just to have a council member sitting on the Consortium Board.
Constantly “going your own way” for its own sake is not only illogical, it’s quite expensive.
I’m glad council was wise enough to recognize this.
$3,000 for hats! Is the council insane?
When village residents pay their property taxes I’m sure most, if not all, of them are under the impression they’re money is going to be spent on little things like roads, police, fire, parks, the Department of Public Works, village administration, etc.
I was shocked and dismayed to learn the village council last week approved paying a $3,000 bill for 250 baseball-style hats embroidered with the new Scripter Park logo. No, this is not a misprint.
Council spent $3,000 on hats. Hats!
Officials said these hats will be used to promote Oxford, given away to local volunteers as tokens of appreciation, possibly sold at Celebrate Oxford and given away as gifts at the village’s annual appreciation dinner, held to recognize all village board members, employees and volunteers.
Words cannot begin to describe what a blatant and idiotic waste of taxpayer dollars these hats are.
Words cannot express how frivolous, unjustifiable, ridiculous, inappropriate and irresponsible it was for the village to spend $3,000 on hats.
That’s $3,000 in tax money that could have been put toward some legitimate community need, but was instead piddled away on useless hats that do not benefit the residents in any way, shape or form.
Some may say I’m getting a little too upset over a measly $3,000, but as I’ve stressed over and over and over again, every penny adds up, especially when they’re taxpayer pennies.
It’s the wasting of a few thousand tax dollars here and there for seemingly harmless little things ? like hats ? that eventually adds up to high property taxes.
It’s easy to spot and rail against the obvious wasting of tax dollars when it’s in the five, six and seven-digit range, but it’s the “$100 for this and $1,000 for that” nobody pays much attention to or questions that nickel-and-dime taxpayers into the poorhouse.
Note to village officials ? Either use the tax money we give you for legitimate government functions that benefit the health, safety and welfare of the residents or lower our taxes and let us keep more of our hard-earned cash.
We can buy our own hats. Thanks anyway.
Note: In his State of the Village address Monday, council President Steve Allen mentioned how “despite numerous funding challenges, the village has achieved many of its goals.” He went on to list “challenges for 2003-04” which included “decreased revenue sharing due to state budget pressures” and “continual upgrades to aging infrastructure,” which are getting “more expensive every year.”
If finding funding is such a “challenge” for the village, then stop wasting money on stupid things like hats!

Bravo to Lake Orion school administrators
Reading the Feb. 26 edition of our sister newspaper The Lake Orion Review, I ran across an interesting little tidbit that I thought deserved some recognition.
In light of the Lake Orion school district’s budget crunch, the superintendent and assistant superintendents offered to donate back to the district their 2004 salary increases, totalling $10,600.
I was impressed by their gesture because I’m not used to school administrators voluntarily offering to give up money from their own pockets when faced with budget shortfalls. I applaud Lake Orion’s top school administrators for their action. I applaud them for leading by example. Leading by example ? what a novel concept.
Priorities please!
With the exception of Ron Mutch and Patricia Smith (who was not at the meeting), Oxford School Board members Tuesday expressed their opposition toward contributing any money for a new traffic signal at the intersection of East Burdick (Lakeville Rd.) and Glaspie (North Oxford Rd.).
Although they tabled the item, most officials publicly balked at the idea of matching whatever Oxford Township contributes to the new signal, up to $7,500.
A majority of the high-volume traffic that jams that intersection comes from Oxford High School, Oxford Middle School and Lakeville Elementary School.
Since the schools are the biggest contributor to that intersection’s woes, they should put up some money.
The maximum the district is being asked to contribute is “up to $7,500” for a signal that could cost between $50,000 and $60,000.
School officials claim they can’t spare $7,500 or less to help solve a serious traffic flow and public safety problem, yet they can approve $34,000 in bonuses for four top administrators without batting an eye?
What are the school board’s priorities? Obviously they’re not the same as the public’s.
Goodbye and thanks to John Thomas
John Thomas attended his last Oxford Village meeting Tuesday as a councilman. He chose not to seek re-election after serving a one-year term.
I hate to see John go because he was honest, trustworthy and truly had residents’ best interests at heart. Those qualities will be sorely missed from council.
John didn’t play petty politics or have a private agenda. What you saw was what you got.
John wasn’t afraid to roll up his sleeves and do some hard work, as evidenced by the return of summer concerts to Centennial Park last year ? which would never have happened if not for him and his wife Holly.
Thanks for your sevice to village residents John.
I wish you continued success with your downtown business (Parkside Dairy, Catering and Carry-out) and happiness with your family.
A little clarification
I just wanted to clarify that my criticism of Oxford Village’s spending of $3,000 for baseball caps featuring the new Scripter Park logo was in no way, shape or form meant to portray Creative Embroidery (the Oxford vendor from which the hats were purchased) in a bad light. My opinion was simply that village officials exercised extremely poor judgement by blatantly wasting $3,000 in taxpayer money on something totally unncessary to functioning of a local government and servicing of residents.
I do not blame Creative Embroidery for selling the hats to the village because it was simply providing a service to a customer. It was the customer’s judgement I questioned, not that of the business.
Creative Embroidery acted properly and professionally by providing a quality product and service to its customer for a fair price. In fact, the only positive thing I could possibly say about the village’s purchase of those hats was at least the tax dollars were spent at an Oxford business thereby keeping the money within the community. Creative Embroidery is a fine local business that helps keep downtown Oxford strong.
I wish them nothing but success and longevity.

“We prefer most contact via e-mail if possible. It is more efficient for us to process your
request.” ? a message to visitors on State Sen. Mike Bishop’s website
Over the weekend, a local resident sent me copies of e-mails exchanged between herself and State Sen. Mike Bishop (R-Rochester) that I found quite interesting and definitely worthy of sharing.
I believe this e-mail exchange offers a rare and honest glimpse into what politicians really think of the public when they’re not shaking hands, marching in parades or prostituting themselves for votes.
Given Bishop represents the Oxford and Addison areas, I thought his constituents would especially enjoy reading how their state senator actually feels about their thoughts and opinions.
It all began when Oxford resident and Republican Robin Moore sent an e-mail to Bishop on March 14 that both complimented and criticized the newly-elected state senator. Her e-mail read:
Dear Rep. Bishop,
I am proud to know you are working hard to hold off Canadian trash ? thank you! However, I take issue with any whining you might do in response to Gov. Granholm’s suggestion that state legislators take a pay cut. Grow up a little, k? Thanks!
The next morning Moore received an e-mail from Bishop which simply read, “Get a life.”
Moore reponded to Bishop’s sarcastic remark by e-mailing the message, “Isn’t that classy? Thank you for responding.”
Within the hour, Moore received another e-mail from Bishop which stated:
“This e-mail address is no longer available to the receiver of this automated message. Your name and e-mail address has been added to the ‘block sender’ list. We’re sorry that we had to close dialog with you, but the host has authorized blocking in the event our system is abused or used counter-productively. Very few have violated the decorum of our system. In fact, since the inception of this web address, you are only the 6th name to be added to this list.
If you feel your name has wrongly been added to the ‘block sender’ list please contact our office and we will take action immediately. ? Web Host
To recap, a constituent took the time and effort to communicate with the state senator elected to represent her interests and in return was rudely and arrogantly told to “Get a life.” Very classy Mr. Bishop, but your snobbish Rochester attitude doesn’t play too well this far north.
I think “get a life” should be Oxford and Addison’s response the next time Bishop deigns to tour the Provinces seeking contributions and votes.
Moore was then told she can no longer communicate with her seantor via e-mail because her innocent and honest criticism somehow “abused” or used the system “counter-productively” thereby violating its “decorum.”
A constituent who did nothing wrong except express her personal views ? a right protected by the First Amendment, the Supreme Court and countless American soldiers, both living and dead ? has been barred from one avenue by which to communicate with her democraticly-elected representative. God bless America.
Bishop’s overall response to Moore epitomizes the true attitude many politicians have toward the people they allegedly represent ? “Vote for me, then shut up and go away until I need your vote again.” Or as W.C. Fields once remarked, “Go away kid, you bother me!”
I spoke with Bishop Tuesday about his e-mail exchange with Moore and he stood by his actions, characterizing her message as “sarcastic,” “rude” and “very abusive.”
“I characterize it as abusive any time people take advantage” of the e-mail system,” he said.
Of Moore’s remark, “Grow up a little, k?” Bishop said, “That offends me deeply.”
“I’m really offended by those out there with a seek and destroy mentality,” Bishop said.
Of his “Get a life” comment to Moore, Bishop said he merely “responded in kind” and was being “stern” with her. “I wanted her to know that I’m a human being,” he said.
Bishop said Moore was blocked from the e-mail system because she “abused the privilege.”
Bishop said he spends a lot of his free time personally responding to e-mails and a message such as Moore’s “upsets” him and “ruins my ability to communicate with people effectively.” The senator challenged other elected officials to communicate with their constituents as much as he does.
Hey Mike, you want to know what I’m doing right now? I’m playing the worldest saddest song on the worldest smallest violin just for you.
If your skin is that paper-thin, you shouldn’t hold public office. Moore’s innocuous comments certainly didn’t merit your insulting and over-the-top response. You went overboard Mike, off the deep end.
Even if you were severely offended by her e-mail (which I think is a bunch of mule muffins), as a public official you should have risen above the urge to strike back like a vengeful, immature child.
You need to either get a life or grow up a little, k? How about a nice anger management course, k?
Bishop also wanted it noted that the e-mail address Moore was blocked from sending messages to was his private account, not his state one. But I must note that her original e-mail was sent to his state account and he responded using his private e-mail.
I urge readers to contact Mr. Bishop at both his state address mike@gomikebishop.com and his private account MikeBishop@comcast.net and tell him what you think of his snotty attitude toward Mrs. Moore. If he doesn’t respond, send two or three e-mails just to make sure he gets the message.
But be careful what you write. We musn’t hurt the poor “widdle” senator’s delicate feelings.

Just in case any local government officials were pondering asking for a tax increase this year, I thought I’d give them a heads up as to the overall mood of Michigan voters.
The March report from the Citizens Research Council (CRC) of Michigan indicated that of the 187 proposed tax increases across the state on the November 2002 ballot, a whopping 126 were rejected by voters.
“Tax rate increases accounted for 60 percent of the tax issues electors voted on in the 2002 general elections. Only about one-third of these issues received voter approval,” according to the report.
On the county level, voters sunk 23 of the 35 proposed tax increases.
On the city level, six out of 10 potential tax hikes met with defeat.
Township voters torpedoed 88 of their 132 proposed increases.
Special authorities fared the worst with voters saying ‘no’ to nine out of 10 proposed hikes.
Voters weren’t in the mood to override the Headlee Amendment either, according to the CRC’s report.
Of the 17 proposed Headlee overrides on the November 2002 ballot, 15 were rejected.
County voters rejected all four of their Headlee overrides, city voters rejected their six and township voters failed five of their seven.
Although most voters didn’t want their taxes raised according to the CRC report, the majority were willing to renew the ones already in place.
Of the 92 tax renewals requested statewide, 88 were approved.
Tax renewals went five for five on the county level, four for four in cities and two for two in special authorities.
Township voters gave thumbs up to 77 of their 81 renewal requests.
The report’s summary stated that “Overall, electors were willing to continue the levy of taxes that were previously authorized, but approved the authorization to collect new taxes, increase tax rates, or override Headlee rollbacks on only about one-third of the ballot issues.”
In other words, the majority of Michigan voters are not so much “anti-tax” as they are “anti-new tax” and “anti-tax increase.”
Voters are willing to keep paying the same taxes for the same services, but no more, no extras, no frills.
I also believe voters are currently more willing to approve millages for absolute necessities as opposed to non-essential luxuries.
This point was illustrated by the fact that 77 of the 113 (or 68.1 percent) millages involving public safety were approved while millages for parks and recreation were passed only 37.5 percent of the time (nine out of 24), according to the report.
Oxford voters mirrored this statewide trend in the 2002 elections by approving a millage renewal for Oakland County Sheriff’s service contract while failing a tax increase for the parks and recreation department.
Government officials contemplating tax increases for 2003 should look long and hard at these numbers ? and the overall economy ? and ask themselves, “Is a tax increase a good idea this year?”
The wise official would say, “No.”
I hope all of our local officials possess such wisdom. Just because you can ask for more money, doesn’t mean you should.

‘Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.?
? Animal Farm by George Orwell

Oxford is a community with one fire department owned by two governments ? one existing inside the other ? and overseen by a third unit of government consisting of 12 elected officials from the other two governments.
It’s hard to read that statement without going cross-eyed.
Don’t worry if the opening paragraph sounds complicated, confusing or just plain stupid ? it is.
Unfortunately, it’s a completely accurate description of the inefficient, cumbersome and redundant system under which the Oxford Fire Department is governed.
No sane, logical or intelligent person could possibly argue that this arrangement functions well and should be preserved for the ages.
Fortunately, Oxford Township decided a few weeks ago that it was time to stop the madness, simplify things and move toward placing the fire department under its direct control.
Granted, it was a decision that should have been made three years ago, but government moves a lot slower than the real world.
The justification behind township ownership and operation of the fire department can be summed up in one simple statement ? ‘Every Oxford resident is a township resident.?
That’s all residents need to remember as they witness this intergovernmental tug-of-war unfold.
Whether you live in the village or the unincorporated areas, whether you live on Hudson St. or Seymour Lake Road, whether you live in the Burdick Woods Condos or Red Barn subdivision, whether you’re served by the village police or county sheriff, one thing remains the same ? WE ALL LIVE IN OXFORD TOWNSHIP.
We can all vote for the seven members of the township board.
We can all run for seats on the township board.
We are all equally represented by the township board.
We all pay township taxes, which include the fire bond approved in 2000.
It makes perfect sense that the one government under which everyone is an equal part, be the single entity under which the fire department, that also serves everyone equally, is owned and operated.
I’m not going to launch into some infantile debate over whether the ownership split between the township and village is 82-18, 77-23 or 50-50 because the undisputable fact is Oxford taxpayers own 100 percent of the fire department.
Every property taxpayer, from Oxford Lakes to Waterstone, owns an equal share of the fire department because each pays the same property tax rates to support it. Equal ownership demands equal representation in both government and business.
However, the Oxford Public Fire and EMS Commission (OPFEC) does not represent all township and village residents equally and fairly.
Village residents can vote for the five village council members and seven township board members that makeup OPFEC, while unincorporated township residents can only vote for the latter.
The five village council members that sit on OPFEC do not have any accountability ? direct or otherwise ? to unincorporated township residents, yet they hold veto power over all board actions.
While I’m sure village members of OPFEC try their hardest to temper their decisions with what’s best for the fire department and community as a whole, in the end they are elected to represent village interests and are accountable only to village voters.
It’s therefore reasonable to assume OPFEC’s village contingent is somewhat skewed or biased toward doing what’s best for the village as opposed to the township and fire department.
In essence, village residents have double the political representation and rights under OPFEC than unincorporated township residents. That’s wrong.
The residents of Dennsion St. should be entitled to no greater voice in the fire department’s operations than the residents of Newman Road and vice versa.
One of the founding principles of this great Republic of ours is that we are all equal at the ballot box.
But under the flawed OPFEC, to quote George Orwell’s 1945 classic Animal Farm, ‘All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.?
It’s time for the pigs, horses, cows and chickens to put their house in order before it burns down.
I hear a lot of talk about the need for one government in Oxford.
We already have that under the township.
Let’s stop trying to reinvent the wheel.
We don’t need OPFEC or any other type of fire board. We need less bureaucracy, not more.
One fire department requires one government that represents everyone equally, not three governments that represent chaos and inequity.
C.J.Carnacchio is an Oxford Township resident and taxpayer who resides in the Village of Oxford on Park St.

‘It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for its welfare.? ? Edmund Burke

I was thumbing through some of my old files last week when I ran across an e-mail exchange that I thought would interest readers.
These communications were particularly interesting in light of the village’s renewed drive toward seceding from the township and becoming a city.
Dated Sept. 12, 2002, the e-mails were from village Manager Mark Slown and village President Steve Allen to the village council.
Slown’s e-mail stated:
‘Dear Council,
After Ian Hill’s encouragement yesterday, and after reflection overnight, I strongly recommend the Council consider passing a resolution authorizing an Oxford Community Government Charter Commission be established to craft a new government Charter and a ballot proposal on creation of one government for the entire community with the details to be worked out by the charter commission under advisement from all interested parties in a series of public hearings, and a majority vote in a general election of both the Village and Township required for approval of the new charter. This government change will be a complex and difficult process with many challenges…
I suggest the only absolute restrictions would be
1) Village and township employees not retained in the new government must be properly cared for in closing agreements with their current employers.
2) Village residents would not lose any Village government services which they currently enjoy that a majority of them desire to retain.
3) New elections for newly created elected positions will be held after the charter is approved while the existing governments remain as caretakers until the new government is established.
The form of government (Township, Council-manager, strong or weak mayor, etc) would not matter as long as these conditions were achieved.
Let us act on our responsibilities, as we are able, to achieve a more efficient single government in Oxford. Let us break down the old barrier between the Village and the Township governments to make one whole and more healthy community.?
In response, Allen wrote to council:
‘For those of you that missed last night’s event, it was a life-altering experience. Mark has heard the message and believes. I have heard the message and believe as well. This is scary stuff, but change always strikes us that way.?
From one government for all to cityhood for some, what a difference nine months can make.
I guess ‘the message? had a shelf life.
I also find it interesting that while village officials and some residents are pursuing cityhood, there is a contingent of Oxford Lakes residents researching how to have their subdivision annexed by the township.
Unfortunately, I have not had any direct contact with these individuals nor do I know who they are or their numbers.
All I know right now is that some Oxford Lakes residents approached a township official about detaching from the village and becoming part of the unincorporated township. Apparently, these individuals are tired of suffering under the village’s high tax burden.
Obviously, not all village residents are on board with the cityhood idea. Some would like to be directly governed by the township with no village in between.
I urge them to contact me because I would very much like to write an article about their efforts.
It’s critical that all possible aspects of Oxford’s future governance ? be it in a singular or plural form ? are explored in detail and presented to the public.
Over the last few weeks, the reports on the village’s effort to become a city have been a somewhat one-sided because no public opposition has reared its head.
Now is the time for opponents to speak their minds.
The future of Oxford is being discussed right now.
Everyone needs to join in that discussion, not just the village’s pro-cityhood folks. Don’t be afraid to express a different or unpopular opinion.
Who will govern Oxford and how it will be done are the two most important questions facing all residents. Each demands an informed answer.
Don’t just sit on the sidelines of History, get in the game and win one for the future.
I urge all those involved in the debate over Oxford’s future to remember what the 19th century Southern Senator John Randolph told his fellow legislators, ‘Change is not reform!?

‘How can (a man) be free if the fruits of his labor are not his to dispose of, but are treated, instead, as part of a common pool of public wealth? Property and freedom are inseparable: to the extent government takes one in the form of taxes, it intrudes on the other.?
? ‘The Conscience of a
Conservative? by Barry Goldwater

Much of my mental attention as of late has been devoted to the renewed campaign to tranform the Village of Oxford into the City of Oxford (or the City of the Village of Oxford if we were to follow Clarkston’s example).
One of the major issues that concerns me is the ability of cities to levy income taxes, something townships and villages are NOT empowered to do.
When I was growing up in Detroit, my father, Joe, constantly complained about having to pay a city income tax in addition to the ones imposed by the federal and state governments.
The City of Detroit was able to tax my family’s home through property taxes then confiscate a portion of my father’s hard-earned paycheck through its income tax.
Even though I was just a youngster, I knew this wasn’t right. It was double-dipping, double-taxation. Local government taxes your property, it doesn’t need to rape your income as well. Ever since then, I’ve opposed the concept of city income taxes.
Thankfully, state law requires voter-approval before a city can levy an income tax.
Voter-approval is a proper and necessary safeguard because our elected officials can’t always be trusted, especially when it comes to the power to tax, which is ultimately the power to destroy.
But in these times of low voter-turnout at the polls and high levels of voter apathy, is this enough of a safeguard to prevent the hypothetical City of Oxford from levying an income tax in the future? I say no.
The last village election saw 76 residents (out of 2,372 registered voters) elect three council people ? a voting majority on the board ? and grant permission to sell three parcels of municipal property that the Oxford Community Development Authority purchased for $585,619.
A mere 76 voters decided all that.
The thought of 76 voters deciding whether or not there should be a city income tax is not only unnerving, it’s downright frightening.
Granted, the mass of people who don’t vote or pay attention to what’s going on in government and politics, not only deserve what they get, they deserve to get it good and hard.
Unfortunately, those of us who do vote and pay attention are forced to suffer along side these apathetic slugs as government runs roughshod over our rights, responsibilities and pocketbooks.
As a village resident who could someday unfortunately become a city resident ? should the voters deem so ? I don’t ever want my income taxed by this new government.
I don’t want the hypothetical City of Oxford or its residents to ever have the power to levy an income tax on me. I don’t want city officials to ever have access to my income records.
Therefore, if the village were to incorporate as a city, I would like to see it written into the new charter, that the City of Oxford will NEVER levy an income tax or ask voters to approve one.
I want it carved in stone, written in blood and certified in triplicate.
If the village officials and residents who are pushing for cityhood are truly serious about their efforts, they should have no problem agreeing to this request.
After all, one of the pro-cityhood arguments is that the new government won’t increase the tax burden village residents currently endure.
What better way to ease voters fears about the possibility of the dreaded city income tax than to completely eliminate this power via the new charter.
The best way to guarantee government will never use a power is to never let it have the option of exercising it in the first place.
Give government an inch, it will take your wallet and your freedom.

I used to think the only two peoples dumb enough to fight over a worthless piece of real estate were the Israelis and Palestinians.
I was wrong.
Oxford Township and Village are just as, if not more, idiotic.
On July 1, 2003 ? a day that will live in absurdity ? the village seized the old fire hall on W. Burdick St., behind the township and village offices.
Under the advice of Minister of Billable Hours Robert Bunting and the direction of Generalissimo Mark Slown, village forces conquered the old fire hall in a daring surprise raid by changing the locks and placing the utilities in the village’s name.
It was truly a stroke of genius to commandeer this worthless, vacant building in need of repair so the township couldn’t just steal it in the middle of the night.
It was also genius because now the village can start paying 100 percent of the building’s utility and maintenance costs as opposed to paying 18 percent when the Oxford Public Fire and EMS Commission held it.
No loss of life was reported as a result of the village’s invasion.
However, the fire department responded to several medical calls in which people, upon hearing about the incident, had laughed until their sides ached and dehydration set in from the constant excretion of tears.
In response to this sneak attack, the township has threatened to employ Weapons of Mass Destruction, commonly known as ‘lawyers.?
If the township unleashes its dreaded ‘lawyers,? the entire village could become uninhabitable due to the foul stench, slime trails and general misery these weapons leave behind.
As a township and village resident and editor of The Oxford Leader, I cannot sit by and continue to watch the never-ending battle between these two governments.
The time has come to act. so I hereby declare the formation of the Northern United Taxpayers Society (NUTS for short), a para-military group comprised of heavily-armed township and village taxpayers ready to reclaim their governments from lunacy.
Government officials be advised that at 10 a.m. July 11, 2003, NUTS will storm the two new fire stations and seize them in the name of taxpayers everywhere.
Not only will NUTS change the stations? locks, we will also switch the address numbers on the front of the buildings so officials can’t find them. Ha!
NUTS will then put the utilities under the name of county Executive L. Brooks Patterson, who’s agreed to go along with us in exchange for two, maybe four, glasses of wine and some prescription pain killers ? or was it Advil?
Don’t try to stop us. Resistance is futile.
Once we have taken control of the fire stations, we will begin seizing other things like the village dispatch center, the township cemetery, Addison and Poland, if there’s time. France has already surrendered to us.
Our justification for all these seizures can be found under Michigan Public Act 33?, otherwise known as the ‘Mine! Mine! Mine!? statute. We also base our claims on the 1967 court case Finders Keepers v. Losers Weepers.
NUTS will not stop until we have brought the village and township to their knees ? or at least some sort of squatting position. The Revolution has begun!
Even now, NUTS has infiltrated both governments with spies whose job it is to spread misinformation and chaos. So far, our spies haven’t had to actually do anything because they discovered misinformation and chaos were already being disseminated by the officials.
Don’t bother to try to figure out which residents are members of NUTS.
Just know that the township and village are full of NUTS.

One of the primary reasons America’s original 13 colonies fought the War for Independence from Great Britain was the idea of “No taxation without representation.”
Our forefathers were sick and tired of the British Parliament imposing excessive taxes on everything from tea to stamps without allowing the colonies political representation in the government.
So our forefathers grabbed their muskets and defeated the professional army of the worldest largest empire at the time.
The rest is history. . .
Today, we live under a system of government whereby taxes are set either by elected representatives or direct votes of the people.
As a Burkean conservative, I am ardently opposed to direct, pure democracy, as were the Founding Fathers. This country was founded as a federal republic, NOT a democracy.
I don’t believe every single question or issue facing government requires or should require a vote of the people. That’s why we elect representatives, who will hopefully make prudent and beneficial decisions on our behalf.
However, given the way elected officials behave in our Big Government-oriented society, I do not trust them to make wise decisions when it comes to increasing taxes or creating new ones.
In the area of taxation, I’m more inclined – based on what I’ve experienced with local government here in Oxford – to prefer that the majority, if not all, tax questions should be subject to a vote of the people.
“Taxation with representation” can be just as oppressive and tyrannical as “taxation without representation” if the representatives don’t listen to their constituents or care what their opinions are.
Often times elected officials at all levels of government become insulated from public opinion by contantly listening to the same small circle of people, who hold the same old views.
In the upper echelons of government, some representatives can hear no other voices beyond those of their paid advisers and special interest lobbyists.
In local government, some representatives can hear no other voices beyond those of the usual crowd of friends and sycophants that hangs out at the corner bar.
Given the high levels of taxation these days coupled with the high levels of government waste, I don’t trust my representatives with any increased or new taxing powers without having the opportunity to cast a ballot on the issue.
Without money, government has no power.
If voters/taxpayers had greater control over government’s revenue sources (i.e. our wallets), maybe our alleged representatives would listen to us more often.
I’ve met too many congenital liars, back-stabbers and self-interested, power-hungry connivers in my four years covering local government to trust elected officials with the power to take more of my money.
I’d prefer to live under a form of government where I could vote on almost every single tax, whether it’s a proposed new one or an old one seeking renewal. A form of government where officials are extemely limited as to the amount of taxes they can levy without a vote of the people.
If you find that government, please let me know.

The people have spoken, but will the Oxford Village Council listen?
Last week, village voters denied their government permission to sell a portion of S. Mill St. by a margin of 78-73.
Although the ballot proposal was specifically asking permission to sell the land, voters were clearly given the impression that if it failed, the street would NOT be relocated to the east and rerouted through 38 E. Burdick St.
At the June 24 council meeting, village President Steve Allen made this point quite clear – “Ultimately, the decision of where Mill St. goes is in the hands of voters. Without an affirmative vote, the plan won’t happen.”
Allen told me last week that he “was stating” his “opinion” when he said that.
It’s interesting to note that if Allen was mistaken by saying that during the public meeting televised by cable, none of his fellow council members publicly corrected him or said he was wrong.
I published that quote in my July 16 column and neither Allen nor any village officials corrected his statement.
I guess from now on when Allen makes a public statement at a council meeting as village president, I’ll have to ask him whether it’s fact, opinion, a mixture of the two or none of the above.
It’s interesting to note that Allen made virtually the same statement referring to the proposed street relocation in the July 3 Oxford Eccentric – “The ultimate decision lies with voters. Without their affirmation vote, the project won’t happen.”
It’s also interesting to note that the July 3 Eccentric article also gave the impression that moving the street was contingent upon the ballot issue passing – “If voters pass the ballot proposal, the OCDA is planning to relocate Mill St. to the east on 38 E. Burdick St….”
Another point to make for those village officials who have insinuated that somehow the Eccentric’s coverage of this issue was more accurate was that our competitor’s July 3 article contained a mistake that was never corrected. The story said, “[T]he council passed a resolution to follow through on the relocation, contingent on the ballot issue passing.”
Council NEVER passed such a resolution. But I never saw any correction from village officials.
Anyway, the village’s message to the public seemed pretty clear that a ‘no-vote’ meant ‘no street move.’
People voted “no” because they understood that by denying the village permission to sell the land, they were stopping S. Mill St. from being moved.
Unfortunately, just days before the election, the village changed its tune.
In the July 2003 Village Voice newsletter, it was stated that, “If the proposal fails: The Village would be unable to sell this portion of Mill Street. The OCDA would most likely move ahead with its plan, including moving Mill St.”
The newsletter also stated that “Government may move or close a street without the underlying property being vacated or sold.”
In effect, the 151 residents who participated in the election are being told their vote doesn’t count because the village can decide to move the street anyway.
Now it’s completely true that the village council – not the OCDA – does have the legal authority to move S. Mill St. without voters’ permission.
It’s completely true that the Aug. 5 ballot proposal never asked village voters anything concerning the potential relocation of S. Mill St. Voters were only asked permission to sell a 0.08-acre portion of of the street.
However, voters were given the distinct impression (read Mr. Allen’s statements again) that they were voting either for or against moving the street by virtue of whether they approved or disapproved of selling the land.
Voters were told it was up to them to decide where Mill St. will be located (again see Mr. Allen’s statements). That’s pretty darn clear.
If the council votes to move S. Mill St., it will be in direct violation of the will of the people.
If council votes to move S. Mill St., it will be saying to village residents that their vote does not count.
If council votes to move S. Mill St., it will be silencing the voice of village residents.
If council members vote to move S. Mill St., they will no longer be representatives of village residents, they will be our dictators.
All five council members had their opportunity to vote in the election just like everyone else. Their votes carried the exact same weight as the other 146 residents who cast ballots last week.
But if council votes as a governing body to move the street in spite of the election’s outcome, village officials will send the message to residents that their votes count more than the people’s. Council gets to vote twice on this issue, a luxury village residents don’t have.
The message at the polls was “NO.”
The village should accept that verdict and honor the wishes of its voters by leaving S. Mill St. exactly where it is. Voter-turnout in the village is already extremely, painfully low. If council ignores this vote and does what it wants, it will discourage even more people from voting. Why bother to vote, if government can do what it wants anyway?
As a village voter, I’m asking the village council to do the right thing – listen to the voters and leave S. Mill St. where it is.
NOTE: Sandy Troutwine attended last night’s council meeting and called me afterwards to tell me that Allen publicly stated that he submitted a Letter to the Editor to the Leader regarding the Mill St. issue that was never published.
Allen’s statement was TOTALLY FALSE!!!
This paper NEVER received such a letter be it via e-mail, fax, post office or the Tooth Fairy. If we had, we would have published it as we have in past with Allen’s numerous letters and guest columns.
I submit that when the village dispatch tower was struck by lightning last week, it was just God practicing His aim to prepare for His real target – Mr. Steve Allen. Happy hunting Lord!

Back when I was a budding young conservative journalist battling the lunatic Left at U-M, it used to drive me crazy when the Michigan Student Assembly (our feeble student government) would debate and approve resolutions that had nothing to do with their real role on campus.
MSA passed numerous resolutions opposing wars in far-off countries, advocating the boycott of grapes to supposedly help the plight of migrant workers and urging the freeing of so-called political prisoners.
It was all pure Leftist bull that had nothing to do with the University, campus life or the fact that students’ rights and pocketbooks were being constantly raped by the U-M administration.
Instead of being a real voice for the student body – advocating its needs and reflecting its opinions – MSA representatives frequently chose to make broad ideological statements that were not at all relevant to their elected duties.
The Oakland County Bored of Commissioners reminded me of the MSA last week when it passed a resolution (14-10) supporting traditional marriages and requesting that a state constitutional amendment defining marriages as being exclusively between men and women be placed on a statewide ballot.
What does marriage – gay or straight – have to do with governing this county?
What does marriage have to do with overseeing the county budget?
What does marriage have to do with maintaining the infrastructure or properly managing growth?
What does marriage have to do with attracting new businesses?
NOTHING AT ALL!!!
The last time I checked protecting and upholding the sacred institution of marriage was NOT one of the sworn duties or legitimate functions of a county board of commissioners.
The board is a body of elected officials, not a council of church elders.
Granted, it’s easy to confuse the two given county Executive L. Brooks Patterson fancies himself the Pope of Oakland Republicans, while the disgustingly self-righteous Commissioner Tom McMillin (R-Auburn Hills) views himself as the Second Coming.
While I do sincerely believe that marriage should always remain an institution whereby only men and women are joined to each other both legally and spiritually, I cannot support the county commission taking a stand on the issue when that’s not one of its proper functions.
All the board’s resolution tells me is that county commissioners have way too much free time on their hands. All the vote did was allow yes-voting Republicans to pander to the Religious Right and no-voting Democrats to suck up to gay rights groups like the Triangle Foundation.
The issue of whether marriage should remain an exclusive privilege for straight couples or include gay couples will ultimately be decided by the state Legislature, Congress, the courts and voters, not the lowly county board of commissioners.
The time spent debating and voting on the marriage resolution could have been better spent trying to solve the county’s real problems.
For instance, how about trying to clean up the City of Pontiac? Isn’t it embarrassing that the richest county in Michigan has its government seated in a weeping sore of corruption, blight and crime?

Focus on Allen’s Performance

It is very important that an elected public official be held accountable for his performance as an elected official.
However, your criticism of Oxford Village Council President Steve Allen with regard to his homestead tax claims (“Village president’s dual homesteads violate state law” Sept. 24, 2000) does not directly relate to his performance as village council president.
It also is bothersome to me that our township treasurer, Joe Ferrari, is quoted regarding a resident’s tax issues.
I realize that tax records are probably open to the public.
However, I believe that such issues should be resolved by the involved parties rather than publicly announced in a local paper.
In the future please focus on issues which have a bearing on Mr. Allen’s leadership role on the village council.
Merle Smith
Oxford Village
Editor’s Note: Thank you for your letter Mr. Smith. Please read my column below.

“You can fool too many of the people too much of the time.”
– James Thurber
Above this column is a letter to the editor written by Oxford Village resident Merle Smith.
Because I like and respect Mr. Smith and value his opinion as both a fellow village resident and reader, I would like to explain why my discovery of village President Steve Allen’s dual homesteads ( a violation of the state’s General Property Tax Act) was a legitimate news story.
First of all, whenever it’s discovered that a public official has violated the law, it’s news – plain and simple.
The United States is a nation governed by laws, not men.
Public officials are charged with upholding those laws.
Whenever a public official is found to have violated any of those laws, the public has a right to know and I, as a journalist and newspaper editor, have a duty to inform them of said transgression.
Everyone – both average citizens and public officials – is expected to obey the law, no exceptions. No one is above the law.
When an elected official is found to be in violation of the law, it’s worse than if it was a private citizen because the public has placed their trust and confidence in the official to uphold, execute, create and obey laws.
Elected officials are held to a much higher standard than private citizens because they are put in a position to act as both representatives and servants of the people and the law.
When a public official violates the law – whether it’s in his personal or political business – it’s definitely NOT a private matter that shouldn’t be “publicly announced in a local paper.”
If it’s discovered that a U.S. Senator hasn’t paid his federal income tax for a few years, should the media not report on it because it’s a private matter that has no bearing on his leadership role in Congress?
Should the media just let the Senator and Internal Revenue Service work it out without informing the public?
Whether it’s the Senator’s unpaid income tax or Allen’s illegal dual homesteads, both are public concerns and legitimate news.
If a public official violates the law in his personal business, how can he be trusted or expected to obey the law in executing his public duties?
Secondly, as an elected official, village President Allen is entrusted with the legal responsibility of collecting and spending public monies (i.e. our tax dollars).
Spending other people’s money, especially the public’s tax money, is an awesome responsibility that should never, ever, be taken lightly.
If an elected official is not living up to his legal responsibility as a private citizen to obey the tax laws and pay the full amount he’s legally required to, how can he be expected to live up to his legal responsibility as a public official to properly spend other people’s tax money?
We are all expected to pay our taxes on time and in full. We are all expected to follow the tax laws (even if we disagree with many of them as I do).
Public officials charged with collecting and spending others’ tax dollars should be no different.
If a public official does not live up to his personal tax responsibilities he should definitely be subject to public scrutiny.
Finally, violating the state tax law does have a direct bearing on Allen’s “leadership role on the village council” because leaders are supposed to set an example for the citizens they represent.
How can private citizens be expected to obey the laws, if public officials do not?
How can private citizens be expected to pay all their taxes, if public officials are not?
A leader who’s in violation of the law sets a poor example for the people he represents.
In most instances, a violation of the law demonstrates poor judgement on the part of the responsible party.
If a leader demonstrates poor judgement in his personal business, how can he be expected to demonstrate good judgement in executing his public duties?
Do we really want leaders who exercise poor judgement?
For all these reasons, the article about Allen’s dual homesteads is a legitimate news story. I stand by it 100 percent. It was factual, accurate, well-documented and truthful.
By the way, property tax records are a matter of public record and can be obtained by both journalists and average citizens.
There is nothing improper with a township treasurer being quoted about tax matters that are public record.
Neither the township nor the county brought Allen’s tax violation to my attention.
I brought it to their attention. My research uncovered it.
Thank you for sharing your opinion Mr. Smith. I hope this column clarified my position for you and please feel free to write again any time.

OXFORD – Fearing their own spoken and written words could eventually expose them, Oxford officials announced last week that local use of the English language will be phased out over the next five years and replaced with “Oxspeak.”
Officials said they got the idea for the new language from George Orwell’s classic book 1984.
In 1984, a totalitarian government, known as Big Brother, kept its citizens in line by creating its own language called “Newspeak.”
In the book, “Newspeak” was created so that it would be impossible for people to think or say the wrong thing (i.e. anything not sanctioned by Big Brother) as there would be no words left to express their feelings.
An example of Newspeak could be found in the 1984 government’s party slogan – “War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.”
“Oxspeak” would operate in the much the same way by changing the definitions of certain words to allow officials to better control the “ignorant masses.”
“What a great idea!” said one Oxford official. “By controlling what people say, we can stay in power and do whatever we want! That Orwell dude was a pretty smart fella. I gotta start readin’ more. Do we have library in town?”
“Everybody knows you can only fool some of the people, some of the time, but with our new language we can fool all of the people, all of the time!” exclaimed another official, who then let out an evil belly laugh which made this reporter’s skin crawl.
“Some people might call this brainwashing, but that would be an inaccuracy probably started by the evil media,” explained one official. “All we’re doing here is twisting the language to make people think only what we want them to think, so they won’t challenge us. That’s not brainwashing. Now, repeat after me, ‘That’s not brainwashing.’”
At a recent meeting, Oxford officials put on their specially designed “thinking caps” – which they paid $5,000 for – and began crafting the new “Oxspeak.”
Here’s a sampling of what they came up with:
1. “Lies are miscommunication.” – Whenever a public official is henceforth caught in a lie or series of lies, he or she will characterize the falsehoods uttered as “miscommunication.”
Example: “The issue is not whether what I said was true or false, the issue is we haven’t been talking to each other enough. The real problem here is miscommunication. We got our wires crossed you silly goose. What we need here is a one-on-one private meeting to straighten things out between us. But it has to be in private so no one can be a witness to what I say.”
“Lie is such an ugly word,” explained one Oxford official. “It’s so negative. It hurts people’s feelings. We want the people to hear nothing but positive words to keep them pacified and complacent. If they hear negative things, they might get upset and do something horrible like vote or run for office. Then we would democracy and where would that get us. I’d be out of work.”
2. “Truth is a lie.” – Whenever the truth is publicly revealed – by one of those negative newspapers for instance – it will immediately be labeled as a “lie.”
Example: “Whatever the newpaper reports I said is a lie, even if it’s the truth. You can only believe my lies because I always tell the truth and the newspaper always lies about the lies that I tell, which are really the truth if you ask me.”
“The truth is a relative thing. It’s not absolute,” said one Oxford official. “Besides the truth can be painful for people to hear. We don’t want to cause our subjects, I mean, residents, pain. For the good of the public and those of us in power, it’s better that the real truth is never revealed. We will decide what’s true and what’s not. Lies are much more palatable. Next question pion.”
3. “Spin is an apology.” – Whenever a public official is caught doing something wrong or uttering a lie, it will immediately be followed by a shallow or hollow public apology that does not explain anything or address the real issue, but is simply meant to quell the masses using the “Science of Pulling-the-Wool-Over-People’s-Eyes,” otherwise known as Public Relations.
Example: “I’m sorry for that one thing I (did or said). It was wrong. I have sinned. It will never happen again. Let’s move on. Discussing this isn’t productive or in the people’s best interest. It’s distracting us from whatever our real purpose is here.”
“An apology always satisfies the stupid masses,” said one Oxford official. “It doesn’t matter if it’s sincere or if it even applies to the situation. You just have to say you’re sorry in front of some television cameras and everybody will forgive you and offer their support. Thank goodness people are such idiots.”
4. “Blame is personal reponsibility.” – Blaming others – be it the media, fellow public officials or imaginary people who are never named – will be henceforth seen as taking “personal responsibility” for your actions.
Example: “I fully admit I did something wrong, but the wrong thing I did was actually made up by the media and my enemies who are out to get me because of my countless hours of devotion to this community. I take full reponsibility for the fact that the media and my enemies are to blame for my misdeeds. Please forgive them for what I have done. They know not what I do.”
This reporter attempted to contact famous lexicographer Noah Webster to get his reaction to Oxford’s abandonment of English in favor of “Oxspeak,” but he could not be reached due to the fact he’s been dead since 1843 and apparently intends to stay that way.
This reporter then contacted the people of Oxford to obtain their thoughts on “Oxspeak,” but they were extremely indifferent to the idea.
“I don’t vote, so why should I care if the government tells me what to say,” said resident John Q. Slacker.
“Who exactly are my elected officials?,” said Mary Clueless. “Do you know their names?”
“What can I do about it? I’m only one person,” said Bob Shirker. “I’m sure somebody else will stop this. I’m just too busy right now.”
“I guess what they’re doing is bad, but politicans do bad things all the time. There’s nothing we can do to stop them,” said Sally Apathetic.
“I give up,” said Quincy Quitter. “Let them do whatever they want.”

“We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.” – Benjamin Franklin

Oxford’s business owners are in dire need of a united voice in their community.
My experiences fighting against the school district’s failed attempts in 2000 and 2002 to increase the non-homestead millage rate – a tax which has a large impact on business owners – led me to that conclusion a while ago.
Business owners currently have no vehicle through which they can take a public stand on issues that directly affect them or lobby local officials for new programs to help them and the community succeed.
Granted, there is the Oxford Area Chamber of Commerce.
However, (and I know I’m going to take a lot heat for writing this) the Chamber functions more like a social club than an organization designed to represent the interests of business owners.
While hosting golf outings, luncheon speakers, multi-chamber mixers, awards banquets and Christmas parades are all positive, fun things for the community, unfortunately they do nothing to advance or promote the interests and needs of local business owners.
I know a number of Chamber members who were extremely frustrated the organization did not take a public position on the school’s proposed non-homestead tax increases.
Whether it was “vote yes” or “vote no,” the Chamber should have polled its membership about the tax issue and taken a stance.
But the Chamber dropped the ball and didn’t say a peep about the election.
I’m sure that had nothing to do with the fact Oxford Schools is a Chamber member and one of its employees served as Chamber vice president at the time.
That’s all water under the bridge now, but the fact remains an issue that had serious ramifications – a full 18 mills worth – for Oxford’s business owners was on the ballot and there was no organization in place through which they as a group could have addressed the public.
That’s not only sad, it’s just plain wrong.
But there is hope and it’s called a “Merchants Association.”
I recently chatted with Orion resident Mark Young, owner of the new Mark A. Young Jewelers in downtown Oxford, about his involvment in trying to form a downtown Merchants Association, an organization which actively represents business owners’ interests and gives them a true voice in the community.
Not only do I like the idea, I endorse it wholeheartedly and pledge my full support if one is ever formed.
Such a group would be of particular value to business owners who don’t live here and can’t vote in local elections, but who do pay hefty property tax bills.
A Merchants Association could help mitigate some of the “taxation without representation” out-of-town business owners are subjected to.
That being said, I have a few suggestions for the people who are attempting to form this downtown Merchants Association.
First, I would explore the possibility of such an organization encompassing all Oxford business owners, not just downtown merchants.
There’s strength in numbers and power when those numbers confront government.
Besides, business owners face many of the same problems, challenges and issues whether they’re located downtown or in the township.
The strength of the business community as a whole, not just one area of it, is vital to everyone’s success. None of us lives in a vacuum, what affects one or a few eventually affects all.
As Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius wrote, “We are made for each other, like the hands, like the feet.”
Secondly, I would make sure Merchants Association representatives attend as many township, village, OCDA, planning commission and school board meetings as possible can so local officials know the organization is active, watching, concerned and informed.
These representatives could report back to the Association if any issues affecting businessess were discussed or acted upon.
When necessary the Association could mobilize its membership to attend a meeting together and voice its opinion in person. It’s been my experience officials act much differently when facing an audience of 30 or 40 people all there for the same issue.
To help keep the public better informed about local issues from the perspective of local business owners, the Association could choose members to write a monthly column in the Leader.
The small business owner will always find a voice and champion in The Oxford Leader.
So, there you have it. Just a few ideas to consider if there’s ever to be a Merchants Association.
But whatever form this organization takes, it must be remembered that cooperation and solidarity will be the keys to its success.
Personality conflicts and petty self-interests must be set aside if a Merchants Association is going to succeed and grow into an influential and respected community organization.
Anytime people with common interests and goals fight each other, they’ve defeated themselves more effectively than any outside force could have.

‘You’re so concerned with squabbling for the scraps from Longshanks? table that you’ve missed your God-given right to something better.?
? Mel Gibson, portraying Scottish rebel William Wallace in the 1995 movie ‘Braveheart?

Next week, when I trek to the Oxford Veterans Memorial Civic Center to vote in the Republican presidential primary, I’ll be casting my secret ballot for Ron Paul ? the only candidate who has principles that mirror our Founding Fathers. Actually, he’s the only candidate who has any principles, period.
Does Paul have a shot at winning the GOP nomination?
Not a snowball’s chance in Hades.
Some would argue I’m wasting my vote because Paul isn’t a realistic contender for the Oval Office currently occupied the Great Failed Hope.
I don’t agree with that logic. I believe voting is about more than just trying to pick the fastest horse in the race.
To me, the ballot box is where I voice my conscience and frankly, I’m sick and tired of holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils because the GOP can’t produce a decent candidate.
I want somebody I can vote for because I truly believe in what he (or she) stands for ? not because I believe he has the best chance of beating the guy I loathe even more from the other party.
Granted, I don’t agree with many of Paul’s foreign policy stances. In fact, I’m dead-set against them. They’re not practical in today’s increasingly-dangerous world.
However, Paul is the only candidate who truly favors restoring the constitutionally-limited Republic that began with such promise and hope in 1787 and ended with Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s vile New Deal.
Paul believes in low taxation, individual rights, the evils of government intervention and the virtues of a truly free market as espoused by 18th-century economist Adam Smith and later, the Austrian School of Economics.
Paul believes, as our Founders did, that the proper role for the federal government in America is to provide national defense, a court system for civil disputes, a criminal justice system and very little else.
Paul’s voting record in Congress earned him the nickname ‘Dr. No? because he refused to vote in favor of any legislation unless the proposed measure was expressly authorized by the Constitution. What a novel concept.
Too many folks who call themselves conservatives and Republicans today are phonies and turncoats, especially those who occupy positions in government.
They talk the talk, but when it comes time to act they vote in favor of expensive and grandiose projects, tax increases, expanded governmental powers and taking on more crushing debt, which is killing us at all levels.
Take a real good look at Greece, folks because that’s exactly where we’re headed if we don’t mend our ways.
Unfortunately, the reality is nothing’s going to change given our current field of candidates. Whether it’s Obama, Romney or Santorum in the White House come January 2013, either way, it’s all over. All of you who plan to support any of the aforementioned Three Stooges are the ones actually wasting your votes, not me.
For those of you who aren’t Ron Paul fans, but still want to send a message to the corrupt and diseased GOP establishment, I beg you to check the ‘uncommitted? option on your primary ballots.
Save your vote for someone who deserves it.

When you stop and think about it, children and government really do have a lot in common.
Children are completely dependent on their parents for everything in life. Without them, they have nothing ? no money, no home, no clothing, no possessions, nothing.
Government is completely dependent on taxpayers for everything it has. Without us, it has no money, no facilities, no vehicles, no land, no fancy offices.
Children have trouble taking ‘no? for an answer. When they don’t get what they want, they incessantly pester their parents and wear them down until they finally get a ‘yes.?
Government most definitely has trouble taking ‘no? for an answer. When a millage or bond proposal fails, officials just keep putting it on the ballot until the voters finally give in and cough up more cash. Or they take public funds from elsewhere, call it a ‘savings,? then use the money to get whatever the voters wouldn’t give them in the first place.
Children have trouble listening and paying attention. You can tell them the same thing a thousand times and it still doesn’t sink in. They only hear what they want to hear.
Government isn’t the best listener, either. Officials say they want to hear from the public, but most of the time, what they really mean is they only want to hear words of agreement, support and praise. Criticism, opposing views and questioning are all viewed as ‘negative,? and we can’t have that, now can we? We mustn’t hurt poor widdle government’s feelings.
Children can be bullies who steal lunch money, tease others and pick fights on the playground.
Government bullies folks all the time, but with more finesse and on a much grander scale. It uses things like red tape, citations, endless fees, eminent domain and worst of all, lawyers.
Children love new toys. The minute they see something big, shiny and expensive in the store, on television or at a friend’s house, they must have it, too.
Government’s no different. The worst thing in the world is when officials visit other communities and come back with a major case of envy, which they pitch to the public as ‘new ideas.? They have a pool; we need a pool. They have a community center; we need a community center. They have a pavilion complete with roller rink and frozen yogurt bar; we need one of those, too. Gimme, gimme, gimme!
Children have trouble admitting they’re wrong and saying they’re sorry except when forced to by authority figures. Children are prone to lie, make excuses or blame others for their mistakes.
Ditto, ditto, ditto for government. The only difference is government should be old enough to know better.
Children require constant supervision. If you don’t keep an eye on them, they get into all sorts of trouble.
Government has a variety of baby-sitters ranging from the news media to watchdog citizens. Unfortunately, no matter how much they watch it, government still gets away with murder.
Children believe the world revolves around them.
Government doesn’t believe a world exists beyond its walls, its rules and its desires.
Fortunately, children eventually learn from their mistakes, grow up, leave the house ? if we’re lucky ? and become self-sufficient, productive members of society.
Sadly, government is always with us. It’s the greedy, self-centered, ill-mannered child who never leaves, never learns and constantly embarrasses us.
Unfortunately, we’ve all let it grow much too large to put it over our knee and give it a good spanking.
Maybe we can send it to boarding school?

When I heard that one of the owners of Great Lakes Elite (GLE) Gymnastics & Cheer was on the phone, holding for me on Line #1, I’ll be the first to admit I was not looking forward to the conversation awaiting me.
I was 100 percent certain this person was calling me about the story I was working on concerning the gymnastics coach who allegedly sexually assaulted a 14-year-old girl in the GLE parking lot (see Page 1).
Based on my past experiences with some other businesses and government entities, my first thought was, ‘Here we go. They’re going to try to persuade me to kill the story and if that doesn’t work, threaten me with lawsuits, boycotts or lost advertising revenue.
‘Or they’re going to tell me how the story should be written, to not mention the name of their business and ask to read it before it’s published. They’re going to want more spin and less reporting.?
I was pleasantly surprised when I picked up the phone and none of what I was dreading happened.
In fact, GLE co-owner Beth could not have been more cooperative, open and refreshingly honest.
Thank you, Beth.
She wanted to make sure I had all the information I needed for my article and that it was accurate.
She wanted to know if I had any questions for her and indicated she was more than willing to answer them as best she could. When it came to anything she didn’t know or wasn’t sure of, she referred me to the Oakland County Sheriff’s Department.
Beth told me how this alleged crime was impacting GLE’s staff, students and parents. She informed me of the immediate steps GLE management took when it learned of this alleged incident.
Above all, she wanted to ensure the victim’s identity would be protected in the story.
I found her comments to be genuine. I found her shock and anguish over the situation to be heartfelt.
Despite the horrific nature of this situation, I found Beth’s willingness to be open about it quite refreshing.
Too often, businesses and government entities have this bunker mentality when it comes to dealing with the press over bad news.
The usual reactions range from ‘no comment? to manufactured statements that really say nothing at all.
In GLE’s case, it was nice to talk with someone who was being honest about the situation and actually trying to help me inform the public about it.
I prefer that to getting meaningless quotes from overpriced lawyers and empty-headed public relations people, excuse me, communications specialists.
The world would be a lot better off if people just did their own talking as opposed to hiding behind useless mouthpieces who don’t give direct answers and understand nothing about real journalism, or truth for that matter.
I commend Beth and GLE Gymnastics & Cheer for their handling of this entire situation. They clearly have nothing to hide and want to do the right thing.
I wish more people were like that.

We are individuals born with free will and living in a free society, but that does not mean we should act without considering how it will affect others.
There is a big difference between freedom and selfishness.
The free man knows that he may say what he wishes, he may go where he pleases and he may do what he wants, but he tempers this liberty with the knowledge that he has a responsibility to at least consider how it could affect his family, his friends, his neighbors or his community.
The selfish man knows only that he is free to do as he pleases and that’s all he really cares about. His actions are his actions and he cares not for how they impact those around him.
Too often we make excuses for selfishness, or worse glorify it. That is why we must constantly remind ourselves that we do not live in a vacuum.
Every choice we make, every word we utter, every action we take affects someone else in some way, shape or form. That’s the price we pay for living in a civil society.
The world would be a much better place if we all remembered that.
****
I read something in another newspaper the other day that gave me quite a chuckle.
Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson was explaining that the reason why the county is trending more toward the Democratic Party these days is because it continues to ‘accept people fleeing Wayne County and Detroit.?
I hate to disagree, but the real reason more and more county voters have chosen to ride the proverbial Donkey is because for years, Patterson made such a big push to attract as many high-tech professionals here as he possibly could.
It’s no secret that folks who work in the tech industry tend to punch Democratic tickets.
Ironically, if this county ever does become a Democratic stronghold, it will be because of the policies Patterson pursued.
Frankly, I don’t know why the Democrats would even try to oust Patterson from office this year.
He’s done more for their party than they have.
****
Hats off to Onekama Township which was recently awarded $355,365 in grant funding from the state’s Economic Vitality Incentive Program (EVIP) to help with local efforts there to disincorporate the Village of Onekama.
The EVIP is an incentive-based program to help offset costs for cities, villages, townships and counties interested in consolidating or sharing services.
The Onekama Disincorporation Commission is currently holding meetings and preparing a plan about how various issues would be addressed if the village disincorporated into the township. When completed, this plan will be presented to the village and township boards for approval. The question of disincorporation would then be voted upon by residents.
All I can say is good luck to Onekama. This community is to be commended for taking a bold step toward eliminating the antiquated, inefficient and unnecessary layer of government known as a village.

I’ve never been a fan of local governments constantly employing the services of high-priced consultants.
Yes, there are times when it’s necessary to get an attorney’s opinion or have an engineer provide some sort of technical expertise.
But I draw the line when a governing body wants to hire somebody to basically do its job.
Case in point, the Oxford Area Cable Communications Commission last week debated the idea of hiring a headhunter to help it find a new station manager for Oxford Community Television (see story on Page B-1).
Nothing’s been decided yet, but I must say I’m opposed to this idea for a few reasons.
One, I find the concept of possibly paying someone a five-digit sum to help hire someone else repugnant, wasteful and shameful.
If the commission is really eager to spend more than $11,000 on something, I’d rather see that money invested in state-of-the-art equipment, dedicated personnel and quality programming ? things that could actually enhance the viewing experience and make the station more relevant to the community.
Secondly, the job of advertising, searching, finding and hiring a new station manager should be the cable commission’s responsibility and no one else’s.
It really shouldn’t be such a complicated matter that it requires hiring an overpaid headhunter. We’re looking for someone to manage a public access TV station that covers two townships, not an international space station orbiting the Earth.
Coming up with a list of qualifications and job responsibilities shouldn’t be too difficult.
Whatever information the commissioners lack can be ascertained by talking to folks at other TV stations, experts at educational institutions with broadcasting programs and existing OCTV personnel such as Jim Hughes, Bill Service and Dave Kenny.
The great part is none of these options cost a dime.
To me, if the cable commission decides to hire a headhunter, it’s choosing to abdicate its responsibility and take the lazy man’s route.
It’s also telling the public there’s no reason for its existence.
A cable commission that doesn’t feel it has the knowledge or ability to conduct a proper station manager search on its own certainly doesn’t have what it takes to oversee whoever it hires for the position.
I urge the governing boards for Oxford and Addison townships along with the villages of Oxford and Leonard to direct their cable commission representatives to reject the high-priced headhunter option and conduct their own search.
It’s not rocket science.
All that’s necessary are dedicated people who are willing to invest the time and effort necessary to do the job right and properly serve the community.
Isn’t that why we elect and appoint people to these types of boards?

They say that politics makes strange bedfellows.
Well, I found out just how true that old adage is when on Friday, I found myself in the position of defending a member of the Oxford Board of Education.
A few people posted comments on the Oxford Leader’s Facebook page inquiring as to whether or not it was a conflict of interest for Carol Mitchell ? local Realtor and school board trustee ? to broker the deal for the 56 acres of land that some private investors from China are in the process of purchasing so they can build student housing along with a hotel and convention center.
In a nutshell, my answer was no.
Why? Because the pending sale is between private parties; the school district isn’t technically involved. Private investors are buying the land from a private party and they plan to use their money ? not taxpayer money ? to develop it.
It’s not a school district project. The district is not buying the land. The district will not own the land. The district is not financing any of the construction that’s planned for it.
In fact, I’m extremely grateful it’s not a school district project because if it was A) they’d be spending tax dollars; B) it would be able to completely bypass the township planning process and ignore local input; and C) the property would be removed from the tax roll.
The only real connection to the district is that the visiting foreign students slated to live in these proposed private dormitories are supposed to attend Oxford Schools.
I saw no conflict here. I talked to an attorney I trust very much and he saw no conflict as of now.
Now, it would be a different story if Mitchell was brokering a real estate deal involving the school district as either the buyer or seller. That would be a definite conflict.
If the school district was expending taxpayer money for this project, that would be a definite conflict.
If the school board was required to give any sort of approval for this project, that would be a definite conflict.
But we’ve been told it’s going to be a completely private development. Unless something changes such as the district becoming involved in the financing or entering into a contract with these investors, there’s no conflict with Mitchell being involved in a private venture.
That’s her business and she’s entitled to earn a living.
After all, we’re not communists. Ho, ho, ho.
Believe me, if I thought there was a conflict here, I’d have been railing against it in my column week after week.
In my 12? years with this newspaper, I’ve seen many conflicts involving public officials.
The largest and most disgusting conflict involved the late Renee Donovan, who served on the village council from 2001-06. During her time in office, the village spent $185,917 on computer-related equipment and services provided by a company owned by her husband and operated out of the couple’s Oxford Lakes home. Although she abstained from votes concerning these expenditures, Donovan still directly profited from them. It was wrong.
Then there was former Oxford Township Trustee Pat Fitchena, who from 2004-08 continued to hold elected office even though she was employed full-time as the director of the North Oakland Transportation Authority (NOTA).
Given the township board helps fund and oversee NOTA, there was a definite conflict there, in my opinion ? even though the township attorney argued otherwise. In November 2005, Fitchena was not permitted by the board to abstain from voting and she ended up casting the tie-breaking vote to increase the township’s funding for NOTA by $22,000.
In both of these examples, the elected official was profiting from the taxpayers and to me, that’s the worst form of conflict there is. Sadly, in both cases, there was no public outcry.
In Mitchell’s case, she’s not profiting from the taxpayers. She’s not using her voting power on the school board for personal gain.
Granted, if she hadn’t been a school board member, she most likely would not have met these Chinese investors, so her elected position absolutely benefited her in that sense.
But legally, there’s no conflict in making connections like that. People in business and government do it everyday.
Let’s face it, the whole reason many ? not all ? local business people volunteer for or get elected to boards is to make contacts, promote themselves, keep abreast of new opportunities on the horizon or advance their interests.
At one point, the Oxford School Board had three, count’em three, Realtors serving on it.
Do we really believe that’s because they were all so very passionate about education?
Or maybe it’s a little easier to sell houses to parents when you can tell them how great the school system is because you just happen to serve on the board of education.
Self-interest is everywhere. It’s what makes the world go round. But self-interest doesn’t automatically equal a conflict of interest in the legal or ethical sense.

First off, I’d like to commend Oxford Community Schools for doing the right thing by telling the cable commission that it no longer wished to have two voting representatives on the board, given the district contributes nothing to it financially or otherwise (see Page 4).
I’m hoping the Oxford Public Library, which also contributes zero to the cable commission, will follow the school district’s example and request that it’s voting representative be removed as well.
If not, I hope the cable commission will vote to amend its bylaws and remove the library’s seat on the board.
As I’ve stated before, it’s not fair in any way, shape or form to give an entity that contributes absolutely nothing a vote on a board whose other members all represent paying entities.
As for the big land deal and proposed development involving the private investors from China (see Page 1), I’ve thought hard about it for a while now ? I knew it was coming three or four weeks ago.
I must say I really don’t have a problem with it and believe it’s a good thing for the community, particularly the addition of a hotel and convention center.
For the township, it means more property taxes and a big help paying off its massive water bond debt.
For residents, it means full-time jobs to support families and part-time jobs for high school kids. The hotel and convention center could also provide internships for OHS students and graduates interested in fields such as culinary arts and hospitality management.
For our local businesses, it means visitors coming to Oxford to dine at our restaurants, utilize services, and shop at our unique stores for clothing, toys, wine, etc.
I do hope when the site plan comes before the planning commission, our officials will require the Chinese investors to pay for the extension of E. Market St. all the way to N. Oxford Rd. as part of the approval process.
It’s the logical extension of that road, which is currently a dead-end, and it would help improve local traffic circulation. Might as well strike while the iron’s hot.

It was certainly interesting reporting on the termination of Don Huegerich as station manager for Oxford Community Television (see Page 1).
As I covered the Nov. 30 meeting of the Oxford Area Cable Communications Commission (what a mouthful), a few thoughts occurred to me and since it’s the season of sharing, here they are.
I don’t understand why two government entities that contribute zero dollars to the cable commission ? namely the Oxford Public Library and Oxford Community Schools ? are allowed to have voting representatives on the board.
These entities don’t have any skin in the game, so how come they get to help make decisions concerning how cable funding is spent and the future direction of OCTV?
It really bothers me that the school district gets two votes on the commission, the same amount as the single largest funding contributor, Oxford Township.
It bothers me that the school district gets two votes, which is equal to Oxford Village’s representation and double that of Addison Township and Leonard, who each get one vote. All three communities contribute funds.
The other thing that concerns me is the school district’s desire to forge a ‘new relationship? with the cable commission and OCTV.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for local governments collaborating and sharing resources in an effort to save money and deliver services in a more efficient manner.
But frankly, in the 12 years I’ve covered local government, I’ve never known the schools to be a very good partner when it comes to helping its fellow entities.
I was here when the school district chose to stop funding the Downtown Development Authority when state law gave it the ability to opt-out of the tax capture.
I was here when the schools told OCTV it had to move its station out of the old high school because there was no room for it in any of the district’s renovation plans.
I was here when the school district didn’t want to contribute any funding to install a traffic signal at the intersection of Glaspie and E. Burdick streets, even though traffic from the middle school and high school was creating significant problems there.
I was here when the school district didn’t wish to help pay for the paving of Ray Rd., even though they greatly contributed to the increased traffic on it. (That happened well before the township got federal money to do it.)
Based on these past experiences and the fact the district currently contributes zero funding to OCTV, I would be extremely wary of any offers from the schools.
One word of advice, if the cable commission does make a deal with the district, get every last detail spelled out in writing. Don’t rely on handshakes or verbal promises.

My publisher, Jim Sherman, Jr., found something on the Oxford Community Schools website that bothered him.
Frankly, it bothered me, too.
There was a section encouraging folks to shop on-line at Amazon.com and BestBuy.com, so the district can receive some extra funding.
‘At no charge to you, anything you purchase through this link will contribute up to 6 percent of the purchase price to Oxford Schools,? according to the district website.
That’s all well and good for the school district. It’s easy money for them.
But what about our local businesses that continue to struggle in these tough economic times?
How does this help our merchants as they look forward to a hopefully profitable holiday shopping season?
How will this help them go from simply surviving to finally prospering?
Call me crazy, but I don’t believe the schools should be promoting shopping anywhere but right here in good old Oxford, where local businesses year after year pay the district’s operating tax, help pay off the school bond debt and keep local folks gainfully employed, so they can live here and send their kids to school here.
There’s no Best Buy located in this town, so shopping there isn’t helping an Oxford business that pays Oxford taxes and employs Oxford people.
As for Amazon.com, they don’t have any brick-and-mortar stores anywhere. The whole thing is an internet business, so they don’t pay any local property taxes except maybe to Seattle, Washington, where the company is headquartered.
I realize that many of the types of items sold by Best Buy and Amazon.com can’t be found in Oxford stores, but to me, it’s the principle of the thing. I know principles don’t mean much anymore, but I still care about them.
Local governments that collect local taxes should only promote shopping at local businesses, period.
It’s bad enough our local businesses must compete with shopping malls, big box stores and the inherently lazy concept of on-line shopping. Do the schools have to pile on by giving outside competition free advertising?
We constantly hear the Oxford Chamber of Commerce and Oxford Downtown Development Authority encouraging us to shop in our hometown, especially during the holiday season when our local merchants need us most.
So, why is the school district promoting on-line shopping for out-of-town corporations?
Sure, the schools will get 6 percent of every purchase, but that’s shortsighted when one considers all the money our local businesses contribute annually in the form of property taxes and generous donations to everything from sports teams to school clubs to PTO fund-raisers?
For instance, when all is said and done, between the July and December 2011 tax bills, Funky Monkey Toys (5 N. Washington St.) will pay $2,126 in local school operating taxes, plus another $846 to help pay off the district’s bond debt. And that does not even include the 6-mill State Education Tax.
To me, $3,000 from Funky Monkey is a hell of a lot more valuable to the community than 6 percent from some outside corporate giant that probably doesn’t even know where Oxford is. Think locally, act locally, buy locally.

I hate it when any government is proud of the fact that it’s sitting on a large pile of our money.
Whatever name you give it, be it fund balance, reserves, fund equity, surplus, etc., government folks never call it what it really is ? over-taxation.
In the latest issue of the Wildcat Review, Oxford Superintendent Dr. William Skilling glowingly reports that ‘this past year we have grown our fund balance by another million dollars, the highest ever recorded in the history of our school district, over 16 percent.?
According to Assistant Superintendent Tim Loock, the district has a total fund balance of $6.86 million as of June 30, 2011, which equals 16.2 percent of the general fund expenditures.
In other words, the Oxford school district has lots of money saved in the bank and is consistently adding more and more.
Frankly, I don’t see this as something to brag about.
For a private business, this would be great news.
But for government, a bloated bank account is an indication that it’s receiving more money than it actually needs from the taxpayers.
[I realize the state collects and distributes a majority of the tax money that local school districts receive, however, districts levy local operating taxes (up to 18 mills) on non-homestead properties (i.e. small businesses, industrial properties, second homes, etc.), so they do have some control over how much they choose to collect.]
Don’t get me wrong, I believe governments should have some sort of savings to deal with unforeseen expenses, emergency situations, large repairs, cash flow problems and the like. However, to me, a sound and reasonable fund balance is 10 percent. That’s a fair cushion.
Anything above 10 percent is rape and pillage ? I don’t care what auditors and government financial experts say.
Now, government folks will argue they’ve accumulated their fund balances by being conservative, prudent and responsible in their budgeting and spending practices.
As taxpayers, we all want our government officials to be good stewards of our money.
But at what point does fiscal restraint turn into simply hoarding our money? If a fund balance climbs to 20, 25 or even 30 percent, should the taxpayers cheer?
Or should they scratch their heads and wonder why their government needs to sit on all this money?
At what point do government folks think their fund balances are too large? Or does that thought ever even enter their minds? I don’t think it does.
Granted, these days, excessive fund balances aren’t something most local governments and school districts are experiencing. Some would argue it’s a pretty nice situation to have in these tough economic times.
I’m not one of those people. I don’t want my governments to operate with deficits, but I also don’t want them just sitting on excessive amounts of my hard-earned money, waiting for ‘what ifs? to come true.
I realize the Oxford school district can’t lower the education tax for us beleaguered homeowners because that’s controlled by the state, but it could certainly afford to cut the non-homestead tax and give local businesses a break.
Maybe the district could reimburse the Lakeville Elementary PSC the approximately $7,000 it recently spent making long-overdue repairs and improvements to the playground. That type of thing should be the responsibility of the school district, not a parent group.
Or perhaps the district could use some of its mountain of money to pay 100 percent of the cost for a school liaison officer from the Oakland County Sheriff’s Dept.
I would prefer that to employing unarmed private security, who have zero authority to make arrests and would be defenseless against armed students or intruders.

The tables have turned and suddenly I, the interviewer, have become the interviewee.
Oxford High School student Jessie Ojeda e-mailed me some questions Monday as part of a class assignment.
The questions are about my job as a newspaper editor. I’m always happy to help our local students and teachers whenever and however I can, so here are my answers, Jessie.
1) What responsibility or responsibilities do you think you have to your reading public?
I believe I have a responsibility to be as accurate as possible, to present all sides of a story in a balanced manner and to keep the community informed about any and all newsworthy happenings including local government meetings, school events, fund-raisers and charities, crimes, corruption, what your neighbors are up to, etc.
I’m not just a journalist, I’m a historian for Oxford and Addison. What I report on now will be used 10, 25, 50 or 100 years from now when someone wants to research the town or an event or even their own family. Today, it’s a newspaper. Tomorrow, it’s a historical document.
2) What do you consider the three most important elements of a successful newspaper article?
First of all, a good story must answer the following basic questions ? Who? What? When? Where? Why? How? Answering these basic questions is absolutely critical for any successful news story.
Next, a story must be interesting or at least written in a way that grabs people’s attention and makes them want to read more. A bored reader isn’t a reader for very long.
Finally, a successful news article must be factual and informative. We want readers to come away from a story knowing more about the topic than they did before.
3) How do you determine which information is newsworthy enough for publication?
The Number One criteria for publishing a story in the Leader is it absolutely, positively must be local. That means it must involve a person, place, thing, event, business or organization that’s associated with Oxford Township or Village, Addison Township, Leonard Village or the Oxford school district. If it’s not local, it’s not in the Leader.
A story must also be relevant. It must be something that has an impact on our readership. It must be something that helps them better understand their community or some other facet of their lives. It must be something that keeps our readers informed and aware of what’s going on around them. We also look for stories that are unique, funny, quirky, interesting, heartwarming or just plain bizarre.
4) What are the main criteria used for determining which Letters to the Editor the paper publishes?
We publish 95 percent of the letters we receive. We value everyone’s opinion on virtually every topic.
The only instances in which we won’t publish a letter are if it contains profanity, libelous statements, information which we know for a fact to be false, or if we feel a writer is beating a topic to death by making the same points over and over again, week after week. We also won’t publish anonymous letters, however, sometimes we will withhold a writer’s name if there’s a valid reason and only if we know who they are.
Contrary to what some believe, having a letter to the editor published is not a right, it’s a privilege. Everyone has a right to commit their opinion to paper, but the newspaper is under no obligation to publish it.
5) Why did you decide to become an editor?
I love to write. I want to help make my little corner of the world a better place. I want to help people. I want to stand up for the little guy and those who feel they have no voice.

Telling people what they want to hear ? with absolutely no intention of actually doing it ? in order to get what you want is the essence of politics.
Politicians call them promises.
Regular folks call them lies.
No one on either side really has any faith in what’s said, but we go through the motions because that’s what we’re used to. Sadly, it’s all we know.
I’m thinking about promises, lies, etc. this week because on Monday, I was on the Polly Ann Trail bridge over M-24 snapping some photos of a professor and some students from Lawrence Technical University.
Part of the reason the good folks from LTU visited Oxford is because they’re going to help the Downtown Development Authority figure out ways to give trail users, particularly those crossing the bridge, easier access to the downtown area (see Page 16). Anyone who’s familiar with the trail bridge knows it was never designed to allow users convenient access to the downtown.
The two giant ramps that lead to the bridge afford absolutely no connection to Washington St. (M-24). One ramp is located off Pleasant St., while the other is located near the intersection of Center and Louck streets.
Despite all the rhetoric prior to the bridge’s construction about how it was going to greatly benefit the downtown area by creating more foot traffic and spurring economic development, the structure was actually designed for one purpose only ? to get trail users safely across M-24.
The reality is the bridge discourages trail users from visiting the downtown. It actually diverts them away from the shopping district by keeping them on the trail.
Back in August 2004, Oxford Village Planning Commissioner John DuVal suggested incorporating staircases, connecting the bridge with M-24, into the design to make it ‘more conducive? to downtown pedestrian traffic. The idea was to allow pedestrians the option of getting on and off the bridge at Washington St. as opposed to going out so far of their way by using the ramps.
Larry Obrecht, the guy who spearheaded the bridge project, told DuVal he thought stairs were ‘a good idea.?
‘And I’ll attempt to incorporate it,? Obrecht said. ‘I can’t envision that being very expensive . . . I’ll be pleased to pursue that and see if we can install a staircase.?
In a Dec. 30, 2004 e-mail to Oxford Village Manager Joe Young, Obrecht wrote, ‘It was always my intent to handle the stairs? through the bridge contractor as a ‘change order? rather than engineering them into the plans, which ‘seems to incur an expense that’s not necessary.?
Steve Allen, who served on the village council at the time, smelled a rat. He publicly stated, ‘We have asked for those stairways, but we’ve yet to see them in writing . . . I want them to be committed to paper and an approved site plan document, so they will be required to be built.?
Despite all this talk, when the trail bridge was finally erected in October 2006, it included no staircases.
Five years later, there are still no staircases and no plans to install any.
Back then, I said Obrecht had no intention of building those staircases. I said Obrecht was just shining village officials on to get his project through. And I was right.
Five years later, Oxford’s left holding the bag, trying to figure out how to get trail users off the bridge and into our downtown businesses.
Is it any wonder why I’m so cynical when it comes to government folks and their empty words?

Bill Service, commander of Oxford American Legion Post 108 and a jack-of-all-trades for Oxford Community Television, stopped by my office Monday and gave me my laugh of the day, perhaps even the week.
He handed me one of the small American flags that were distributed during Ridgelawn Cemetery’s veterans ceremony on Saturday (see Page 32).
Service pointed out that the flags were unfortunately ‘Made in China? and contained only 41 stars.
For those who don’t know it, Old Glory has 50 stars, one to represent each state in the union.
After I got done laughing, I had to wonder why only 41 stars?
Do the Chinese have difficulty counting? Not to stereotype, but I thought standardized test scores indicate they’re better at math than we are?
Was it done deliberately as an insult? A subtle jab at the old imperialist running dogs?
Are they jealous because China’s flag only has five stars and one less color? Don’t believe me ? just go in any Oxford school and ask to see its Chinese flag.
Does China plan on foreclosing on nine of our states as payment for the approximately $1.2 trillion of the U.S. debt it owns? If so, they can have Ohio today.
Did the nine missing stars say something against the Chinese government and now, they’re being held in a re-education camp?
Are we slowly being brainwashed into believing our nation is smaller and weaker than it actually is? Will we all wake up one day and think America’s no bigger than Rhode Island?
Is there some sinister attempt afoot to rewrite American history? God help us if China’s printing our textbooks, too. Keep a close eye on those chapters about the Korean War (or the ‘War to Resist American Aggression and Aid Korea? as it’s known in China).
Is this part of some left-wing environmentalist statement that we need to conserve all the stars we have now because if we don’t, they’ll be no stars left for our children?
The mind literally reels at the sheer volume of conspiratorial ? and hilarious ? possibilities. Or maybe it’s just a simple case of shoddy work by cheap labor.
All I know is if this country can’t even manufacture its own flags, our most precious national symbol, we’re in deeper trouble than I thought.
****
On a serious note, thanks to Chris and Loretta Acheson, who operate Ridgelawn Memorial Cemetery, for making me one of their honorees Saturday.
I was quite humbled and appreciative.
I know they’re very grateful for all the coverage I’ve given their annual Wreaths Across America event, but as I always say, ‘All I do is take some photos and write a few words. You guys do the real work.?
Oxford should be thankful that it has people like the Achesons who take the time to ensure that no veteran ? deceased or living ? is forgotten.
They’ve set a fine example for how this community should honor its heroes and teach its children about their sacrifices to protect our liberty and security.

The greatest lesson the Chinese students visiting Oxford can return home with won’t be learned in any of their classrooms at the high school.
The lesson I’m referring to has nothing to do with mathematics, language or even art and athletics.
The lesson to which I’m referring is how to live in a truly free society, something which I’m guessing they have no experience with given the authoritarian nature of their one-party system government.
When I speak of freedom, I don’t mean the crass materialism that often gets mistaken for liberty.
I don’t consider a people free because they’re able to eat at McDonald’s, drive oversized SUVs and visit shopping malls. I also don’t consider a people free because their government is practicing its own bastardized form of capitalism and allowing some folks to get rich.
The freedom of which I speak springs from natural or inalienable rights, which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights.
Living in a free society means expressing opinions and ideas, either verbally or in writing, without the fear of being arrested and imprisoned by the authorities.
Living in a free society means being able to worship as you please without worrying about who’s watching you enter a church, synagogue or mosque.
Living in a free society means being able to surf the internet and access any website you wish because the government has not censored or blocked those it deems unacceptable or dangerous to its grip on power.
Living in a free society means reading a newspaper that’s been written by independent journalists who have not been told by the government what stories to write or how to write them.
Living in a free society means attending a government meeting and watching representatives you elected debate and vote on various policies and issues.
Living in a free society means being able to go wherever you please, whenever you please and with whomever you please.
By the time these Chinese students return home, I sincerely hope they will have experienced all of these things and so much more. I hope they will have learned what it truly means to be free and that it is man’s natural state.
I hope they will infect others in their country with spirit of liberty and perhaps, one day, spark the long-overdue revolution that will finally free the Chinese people from an oppressive and corrupt government that should have been relegated to the ash heap of history long ago.
Who knows? Maybe one of these students can be the next Liu Xiaobo, the Chinese dissident who, in December 2009, was sentenced to 11 years in prison for ‘inciting subversion of state power.?
Liu was arrested for co-authoring Charter 08, a declaration calling for political reform, greater human rights and an end to one-party rule in China. Although he pleaded not guilty to the subversion charge, the defense was not permitted to present any evidence at his trial.
Last year, Liu was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his two decades of fighting for peaceful democratic reform.
To the world, Liu’s a hero. To the Chinese government, he’s a dangerous criminal that must remain locked away.
There’s a lesson in that, too, and the question these Chinese students must ask themselves is, ‘Do I want to continue to live under that kind of tyrannical government or do I want to actively work to change things??

It’s amazing how you can see something for years, then one day, all of the sudden, it inspires you to create.
That’s what happened to me as I gazed at the painting shown right while making some routine phone calls.
For those of you not familiar with it, it’s part of a series called the ‘Four Freedoms,? painted by American illustrator Norman Rockwell in 1943. It’s called ‘Freedom of Speech.?
It’s always been one of my favorite works of art. Honestly, I must have sat and stared at it a thousand times, but I was never inspired to write about it until now.
To me, this painting is the very essence of what American government, particularly at the local level, is supposed to be about.
Take a good look at the man who’s speaking. Notice the way he’s dressed. He’s not wearing a fancy suit with a silk tie; he’s dressed in his rumpled work clothes. He probably just came from a long day of laboring on his farm or perhaps at some local factory.
He’s not someone pretending to be the common man or trying to relate to the common man, he is the common man.
He’s standing up amidst his fellow townspeople, addressing some type of governing board about an issue that’s important to him or important to his community.
He’s probably nervous about speaking in public, but at the same time, he’s also not afraid to speak his mind.
My guess is whatever he’s saying isn’t very eloquent or polished, but you know it’s honest, you know it’s based on common sense and you know it’s from his heart.
Notice how the folks around him are listening so intently. They seem to genuinely care about what he has to say even though he possesses no degrees, no titles, no expert credentials to speak of. They care about what he has to say because he’s their neighbor, he’s their friend, he’s truly one of them.
I find myself getting lost in a sea of idealism when I stare at this painting. I think this how it was meant to be; this is how it should be. But that wonderful spell is soon broken when my mind dwells on many of the people I deal with on a regular basis in the political realm ? the two-faced, the cowardly, the deceitful, the apathetic and the easily-led.
I ask myself, ‘Where has the man in this painting gone??
He didn’t just exist in Rockwell’s imagination. He used to be flesh and blood. He used to be us.

Psst . . . fellas . . . come here.
Don’t tell the womenfolk, but there’s a men’s event being planned in Oxford.
A men’s event, you say! Shhhh….
The event is called ‘It’s a Guy Thing? and it’s going to take place at Devil’s Ridge Golf Club on Saturday, Oct. 29.
A committee consisting of Parks/Rec Director Ron Davis, Jeweller Mark Young, township Supervisor Bill Dunn, Oxford Leader Publisher Jim Sherman, Jr. and myself began meeting informally at my house a few weeks ago to toss around some ideas.
Right now, we’re looking at a full day’s worth of things that guys love including college football, Texas Hold’em poker, golf, hunting, cool cars, adult beverages, cigars, assorted grilled meats and other manly things.
It’s going to be a full day of vendors and activities geared toward the Y chromosome.
Sounds good, right?
Not only is this going to be a fun event, it’s going to help folks in need.
In order to attend ‘It’s a Guy Thing,? each guy will be asked to bring at least two nonperishable food items that will be donated to the Oxford/Orion FISH food pantry.
We’re also planning to have a Texas Hold’em tournament, the profits from which will be donated 50/50 to two very worthwhile causes.
The first is Wheelin? Team 457.
Founded in 2003 and based at American Legion Post 457 in North Branch, the nonprofit group helps people, including veterans, confined to wheelchairs participate in indoor and outdoor sports such as target shooting, archery, swimming, deer and turkey hunting, fishing, golf, weight-lifting, table tennis, wheelchair racing, bowling and billiards.
The second is St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, the mission of which is to advance cures, and means of prevention, for pediatric catastrophic diseases through research and treatment.
This was a cause very near and dear to the heart of the late Anthony J. Munaco, Jr., who owned Devil’s Ridge until his passing in December 2010.
We’re still in the planning stages, so right now we need vendors, volunteers, ideas and sponsorship money.
Don’t be shy. We want to hear from you. We want to work with you. Tell us what you want to see and how you can pitch in.
You can communicate with us by e-mailing itsaguythingoxford@hotmail.com or by visiting us on Facebook. The Facebook page is called ‘It’s a Guy Thing (Oxford, Michigan).?
I’m really excited about this event because it’s about time the men of Oxford had a day of their own.
As I stated in a previous column, Oxford has nine events for women and zero for men. Approximately 50 percent of this community is being ignored.
We want to make ‘It’s a Guy Thing? a huge success, so it becomes an annual happening.
If there are two things men are good at, it’s having a good time and helping others.
Let’s show the ladies how it’s done.

Over the last few weeks, Oxford’s experienced two incidents of senseless vandalism, one involving private property, the other concerning public property.
The first occurred on July 22-23 at Koenig Sand & Gravel on Lakeville Rd.
Some destructive idiot (or idiots) smashed up trucks belonging to lifelong Oxford resident and businessman Jeff Acton, then proceeded to trash the interior of the Koenig office.
The second occurred last week when some malicious bonehead (or boneheads) pried Centennial Park’s soldier statue off of its base and left in laying on the ground like a piece of garbage (see story on Page 3).
The individual or individuals responsible for these mindless acts have yet to be identified and brought to justice. Make no mistake, whoever is responsible for these crimes is loathsome and contemptible.
They cost two local businesses thousands of dollars which they can ill afford in this troubled economy and they disrespected the memories of the 44 fallen soldiers represented by that statue.
Based on past experiences, my guess is kids are probably responsible for both crimes.
If that turns out to be the case, it’s inevitable that someone out there will pen a letter to the editor about how kids do bad things like this because they’re bored and there’s just nothing for them to do around here.
It will probably end with a call to build a skate park, a teen center or some other taxpayer-financed playpen.
I really hate the argument that vandalism is the result of boredom and that we as a community have a responsibility to open our wallets and keep these kids occupied.
Vandalism is not the product of boredom.
Vandalism is the direct result of poor parenting, poor decisions and the overall lack of discipline in this ‘if it feels good, do it? world.
Growing up in Detroit and Eastpointe in the 1980s and early 1990s, there were plenty of times my friends and I got bored, particularly during the summer.
But believe it or not, we didn’t smash windows, we didn’t spray paint things and we didn’t destroy other people’s property for poops and giggles.
Why? Because we knew it was wrong ? and we were deathly afraid of our parents.
No one had to bribe us with fancy youth facilities to keep us from sacking the neighborhood like crazed Vikings on a drunken rampage.
That’s not to say we didn’t get into our fair share of trouble, but we never violated the law.
I sincerely hope the Oakland County Sheriff’s Department and Oxford Village Police catch these vandals and they are punished to the fullest extent of the law.
Parents, talk to your kids about vandalism. Explain to them that it’s a crime, not a harmless prank. Explain to them why it’s important to respect other people’s property.
Citizens, keep your eyes open. If you see something suspicious, no matter how seemingly insignificant, immediately report it to the police. Let’s put a stop to this.

‘We need to get our average composite score on the ACT to at least a 21 (or) 22. That, to me, is a minimum . . . We’re going to make a more concerted effort to get our kids? scores up on the ACT . . . I’m not saying 21 is the goal. I don’t want to be lower than that. I want to get higher than that.?
Those were Oxford Superintendent Dr. William Skilling’s words in July 2009.
At the time, the district’s average composite ACT score was 19.4 and that included juniors from both OHS and Crossroads for Youth’s alternative school.
The average composite ACT score for just Oxford High School was 20 back then.
Two years later, the composite ACT score for the district is still 19.4, while OHS remains at 20.
In 2010, the year in between, the district’s average score went up to 19.6 while the high school composite went down to 19.9.
My question is where is this ‘concerted effort to get our kids? scores up on the ACT??
I see tons of emphasis on all things Chinese. I see lots of hoopla about fake blue grass. I see tremendous amounts of time and effort being poured into marketing, glossy publications and creating just the right image.
I also see that the average composite ACT scores are higher in surrounding school districts such as Clarkston (21), Lake Orion (21.7) and Brandon (20.3).
Even when you take out the alternative education students, OHS? average of 20 is still lower than Clarkston HS (21.5), Lake Orion HS (21.7) and Brandon HS (20.5).
What I don’t see is this ‘concerted effort? in Oxford and frankly, it worries me as it should really worry every parent out there. You see unlike the MEAP and MME tests, which the education community tends to look down on and always tries to dismiss the results of, the ACT is extremely important and extremely accurate.
But you don’t have to take just my word for it.
‘I’m going to be quite honest with you, I don’t really care about the MEAP scores as much as I care about the ACT,? said Skilling in July 2009. ‘And the reason I care more about the ACT (is) because it’s a true norm reference test that’s valid and a true predictor of future success.?
‘We can compare ourselves to kids all across the country (with the ACT),? Skilling said. ‘With the MEAP, you can’t compare yourself with anybody except in the state of Michigan. It’s not a very good predictor of future success.?
‘What’s really important to us is that ACT because that’s what determines scholarships; that determines what students have access to in terms of what schools they can get into or not,? Skilling explained.
Two years ago, Skilling explained he wanted Oxford to have an average composite score of 21 at the very least because that, along with a good GPA, would get a student into any what he called ‘B-type? university such as Western Michigan, Grand Valley State, Oakland University and Mid-American Conference (MAC) schools.
‘I want to make sure that every student who graduates from Oxford has the ability to be able to go to a (Great Lakes Intercollegiate Athletic Conference) school, a MAC school, at least,? he said.
My reporter, Andrew Moser, has submitted some questions to the school board concerning the latest MME and ACT scores and what is going to be done to improve them.
Maybe, just maybe, instead of focusing so much time and energy on setting up schools in China and bringing Chinese students here, Oxford should be focusing on increasing that average composite ACT score.
Maybe Oxford should start taking care of Oxford.

‘There never was, for any long time, a corrupt representative of a virtuous people; or a mean, sluggish, careless people that ever had a good government of any form.?
? Edmund Burke
I must applaud Oxford Village Councilman Tony Albensi for finally speaking up last week regarding fellow Council Member Maureen Helmuth’s role in covering up the alleged embezzlement of property tax payments (see Page 1).
Albensi had the guts to publicly say what Helmuth did was wrong.
It was quite refreshing given all the apathy and cowardice exhibited by village residents since it was first revealed by this newspaper in February that Helmuth violated the public’s trust, ignored her duty to the taxpayers and helped cover up an alleged crime.
The silence of village residents has been both deafening and disappointing, but certainly not surprising.
Over the years, I’ve met so many Oxford residents who are willing to pull me aside to tell me how much they agree with my columns or how angry they are with their local governments, but when the time comes to speak up for all to hear, they suddenly develop laryngitis.
When the time comes to stand up and do what’s right, they leave it to others.
When the time comes to write a letter to the editor, they decide it’s too much trouble or if they do pen something, they send it anonymously or ask to have their name withheld, both of which devalue the opinion.
People say they’re worried about repercussions ? be they real or imaginary.
People say they don’t wish to offend friends who might disagree ? although if a friendship can’t withstand a difference of opinion, it’s obviously a very superficial relationship that’s of no real value.
People say they don’t want to put their name out there, make waves or call attention to themselves.
People say their opinion won’t make a difference, so why bother to get involved.
Whatever reason they cite, they’re all just excuses.
Excuses for apathy. Excuses for cowardice.
Ironically, we just celebrated the Fourth of July, the historic date on which in 1776, our Founding Fathers adopted the final wording for the Declaration of Independence.
By affixing their names to that piece of parchment, the Founders were effectively signing their own death warrants. Publicly declaring their independence from Great Britain and the Crown was an act of treason, the penalty for which was a date with the hangman and his noose.
These brave men risked their lives, the lives of their families and their property to regain the liberty they had lost, to right the wrongs perpetrated by the British and to further one of the most just causes in human history.
It’s hard to believe that we’re descended from these noble and courageous men when 235 years later we’re afraid to sign letters or publicly chastise a government official who so obviously flouted the law.
The shame I feel every time I see Helmuth acting as my representative at a council meeting is nothing compared to shame I feel when I look at my fellow village residents whose silence and inaction make them just as guilty.

Oxford’s beginning to remind me of that 1988 episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation entitled ‘Angel One,? in which the crew visits a planet run by women.
I base this on the fact that we have umpteen events for ladies and zero, count’em zero, for men.
The Oxford Chamber of Commerce has the Women’s Expo, Hats & High Fashion, the Spring Fashion Show and Ladies Night Out.
Outside of the chamber, we have the twice-yearly Girlfriends Walk put on by female downtown merchants, the Oxford Women’s Club’s annual fashion show, plus two annual events on the Polly Ann Trail aimed at fighting breast cancer.
If you’re keeping track, that’s a total of nine women’s events per year. It’s almost a monthly thing around here.
On the surface, it appears that Oxford’s men don’t buy anything, leave the house or get cancer.
Granted, the reason we have so many ladies events is because Oxford’s female merchants are definitely more active, more organized, more visible and more vocal. They’re really quite good at marketing and networking.
It also doesn’t hurt that the chamber’s leadership is dominated by women ? eight of the 11 board members are women, plus the director is a woman. And let’s not forget the DDA director is a woman.
Now, before you put on your Bella Abzug t-shirt and start blasting that old Helen Reddy album while writing a nasty letter to the editor, hear me out.
I’m not saying all this is a bad thing; it just explains why guys around here get the short end of the stick. The men have been forgotten. We’re practically invisible.
We need a men’s event full of manly things and plenty of manly fun. I’m talking power tools, cigars, beer and whiskey, fishing and hunting gear, classic cars and their accessories, manly food (i.e. no wrap sandwiches or vegetarian dishes), Carhartt clothing, motorcycles, men’s jewelry and watches, grills and barbecue accessories, lawn and garden stuff, golf, poker, and anything else men love.
And let’s make this event a fund-raiser to help fight prostate cancer. Except for skin cancer, cancer of the prostate is the most common type of cancer found in American men. In fact, 1 in 6 men (about 16 percent of all men) will get prostate cancer during their lifetime. Eight percent will develop significant symptoms, while 3 percent will die.
Or how about testicular cancer, which really doesn’t get much attention. About 8,000 men are diagnosed with testicular cancer and about 390 die of it each year. Granted, the numbers aren’t huge, but it’s still significant.
My point here is men own businesses, men earn money, men buy stuff, men get their own types of cancer, so why shouldn’t the men of Oxford have their very own event? I think it’s long overdue, especially considering we generally die first.
It’s time to get off our butts, fellas and organize in the name of fun, commerce and charity. As luck would have it, the chamber is currently looking for ideas for a men’s event. Suggestions are due by July 15. Call (248) 628-0410 for more information.
Men of Oxford unite! You have nothing to lose, but that purse you’ve been holding while she shops.

‘I like a little rebellion now and then . . . The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all.?
? Thomas Jefferson
One of my favorite words in the English language is ‘choice? because to me it goes so well with some of my other favorite words ? freedom, liberty, self-government.
In the American political system, the most pure and direct way that people make choices is via the ballot.
We elect our leaders through the ballot. At the state and local levels, we can enact laws, approve (or reject) taxes and decide whether to sell or purchase property through the ballot.
The ballot is at the very heartbeat of our democratic republic.
That’s why it both saddened and disappointed me to hear some of my fellow residents at the June 14 Oxford Village Council meeting state they were opposed to the idea of putting the issue of police services on the ballot (see Page 4).
Well, this is one village resident who wants a choice. This is one village resident who believes all village residents should be given a choice.
Fact is, the current incarnation of the village police was created by a vote of council in December 1999, not a vote of the people. Since then, the annual millage levied to fund the police department has been decided by council, not a vote of the people.
I don’t think it’s too much to ask that in these difficult financial times, village residents be given a choice regarding how much they wish to pay for police services, especially if it’s possible to save money by outsourcing.
I know that legally we can’t have an advisory ballot with language specifically asking voters to choose between the Oxford Village Police and the Oakland County Sheriff.
But what about a ballot asking voters whether they want to pay X mills or Y mills for police?
Prior to the election, the village could conduct an informational campaign to let voters know that one millage rate represents how much it costs to fund the local department while the other tax rate represents the amount necessary to fund a sheriff’s department contract.
If a majority of residents are truly are happy with the local police in terms of service and the amount of taxes they’re paying, they’ll vote that way and I won’t bring the issue up again because the people have spoken.
But I really don’t know how the entire village feels and I’m sorry that I’m just not arrogant enough (I know it’s hard to believe) to say I know for a fact everybody wants their local cops or everybody wants county deputies.
That’s why I want to see this finally go on the ballot.
In my mind, there are only two real reasons why someone would not want this question on the ballot:
A) They wholeheartedly support the local police, but they aren’t confident that enough village residents share their opinion, so they don’t want to risk it.
B) They’re so arrogant they honestly believe voters are just too darn ignorant, uninformed or easily-swayed to truly understand the issue and as a result, the electorate could make what they deem to be the wrong decision.
Either way, they don’t want the question to be asked because they’re afraid of the answer. To me, that kind of thinking is the antithesis of a free society.
I support giving people as many choices as possible; whether or not I like the outcome is my problem.
We should not fear the ballot. We should fear people who fear the ballot.

Every week, the Oxford Leader is chock-full of photographs of K-12 students winning awards, participating in special events or projects, engaging in classroom activities, playing sports, acting silly, etc.
This week you’ll notice a ton more photo pages than usual.
That’s because school ended a week earlier this year and everybody tried to cram every event they could possibly think of into just a few days.
But that’s okay because I really do enjoy taking photos of your kids and publishing them.
I love it when parents and kids come up to me and thank me for putting them in the newspaper.
I love it that my work over the last 12 years can be found in hundreds, if not thousands, of scrapbooks.
I love it when I walk into a classroom and some kid yells, ‘Hey, there’s the newspaper guy? or ‘Look, the photographer dude’s here!?
I love it when the kids come up to me and just start talking about stuff. I can tell you from experience that kids do, in fact, say the darndest things.
Believe it or not, it’s a form of therapy for me.
I spend a lot of time dealing with government issues and officials. That means I spend a lot of time talking to people who I know are lying to me or at the very least, trying to hide things from me and the public.
Dealing with all the phonies, all the self-serving who masquerade as the selfless, all the dictatorial-types who seek to protect their little fiefdoms or impose their will on others, really takes a toll on me sometimes.
Being able to escape to the schools and spend time with the kids is my break from all that.
Unlike many adults, most kids don’t have any hidden agendas. They don’t bad-mouth you behind your back or try to get you to join their ‘team.?
Kids are generally very honest. What you see is what you get. They don’t put on airs. It’s too bad so many of them will lose that innocence and genuineness when they grow up, especially those who enter politics and public relations ? professions of the Damned.
Anyway, I just wanted all the parents out there to know that I couldn’t get your kids in the newspaper week after week without a ton of help from school folks.
I want to thank all the secretaries, teachers and administrators who call or e-mail me on a regular basis with news tips and photo opportunities.
I want to thank all the secretaries, teachers and administrators who take the time to identify students whenever I send them e-mails filled with photos I’ve snapped.
I want to thank all the secretaries, teachers and administrators who place a high value on getting their students in the community newspaper each week.
The Oxford Leader has the best school coverage because it’s truly a cooperative effort.
Sure, I spend many of my days, nights and weekends covering the events, but without all the support I receive there wouldn’t be editions of the paper like this one.
Enjoy your summer. See you all in the fall.

Last week, I was asked to give the keynote speech at Oxford-Addison Youth Assistance’s annual Youth Recognition awards ceremony.
Despite my dislike of public speaking, I immensely enjoyed the experience and thought I’d share my speech with readers. Here it is:
I was deeply honored and humbled when Youth Assistance asked me to be the guest speaker for tonight’s awards ceremony.
I’ve been covering the Oxford/Addison area for 12 years now and based on what I’ve seen, OAYA is one of the most valuable groups this community has because it’s truly dedicated to helping all kids, especially those who might otherwise fall through society’s cracks.
I’m particularly delighted to speak at tonight’s event because we’re here to recognize a terrific group of kids for their community service, their good deeds, their selflessness, their compassion for others, and their leadership.
Each of tonight’s honorees is here because they chose to help make their little corner of the world a better place.
They didn’t do it because they were told to. They didn’t do it because they were paid to. They didn’t do it to build a resume. They didn’t do it so that others would heap accolades upon them.
Each of them did what they did because it was simply the right thing to do and that’s the most honest and genuine form of volunteerism there is.
In that respect, tonight’s honorees are not only role models for their fellow students, they’re role models for us adults. They gave for the sake of giving, not because they expected something in return.
There’s a lesson in that for all of us.
As a community journalist, it does my heart good to see young people helping the community they live in.
Too often, people think that in order to really make a difference in the world they have to travel to some distant Third World country or rush to the scene of some natural disaster.
But the truth is the greatest impact we can make on a daily basis is right in our own backyards.
You make the world a better place when you donate food to Oxford/Orion FISH.
You make the world a better place when you mentor an at-risk kid through OAYA’s Mentors Plus program.
You make the world a better place when you take some time to talk with that senior citizen on your block who lives alone. Or better still, invite them over for dinner.
You make the world a better place when you attend a spaghetti dinner to raise money for a community member battling cancer. Incidentally, there’s one on June 1 at Leonard Elementary for second-grader Gillian Yocum, who’s fighting leukemia.
You make the world a better place when you give voice to the voiceless, extend tolerance to the scorned and protect the weak from bullies in all their forms.
In short, you don’t have to travel thousands of miles to help others. All you really have to do is open your front-door and open your heart to the poor, the sick, the lonely, the forgotten and the marginalized that walk among us everyday.

As I listened to the Oxford Village Council’s budget discussion last week, I couldn’t help but wonder why they kept debating a lot of nickel-and-dime stuff that really wasn’t going to make a huge difference in the long run.
Finally, Councilman Tony Albensi said something that smacked of common sense.
Being it was at a government meeting, I didn’t recognize it, so I hit rewind, listened again and there it was ? a logical suggestion. Albensi wants the village to explore the possibility of outsourcing its police and dispatch services (see Page B-1).
Based on the projected village police budget for 2011-12 and the options presented by the Oakland County Sheriff’s Department, the village could save somewhere in the neighborhood of $200,000 to $300,000 annually by contracting with the county.
Council owes it to its constituents to seriously explore this very viable option.
Council owes it to its constituents to place this issue on the ballot and let the voters finally have a real say as to who polices the community and how much they pay for it.
You really want to know what village residents want?
Stop making assumptions. Stop talking to the same small group of like-minded people.
Give village voters something the council didn’t give them in December 1999 ? a choice.
Government officials who truly want what’s best for the people needn’t fear the ballot box.
****
Once again, I have to say I’m staunchly opposed to the idea of selling the Northeast Oakland Historical Museum building to a private party just because the village needs to raise some extra cash (see Page B-5).
If council decides to put it to a vote of the people, that’s fine with me, but this village resident will fight it in his column. Allow me to quote from a column I penned in January 2008, the last time this issue reared its ugly head ?
Moving the historical museum out of that beautiful old bank and into those crappy, drab township offices would be a huge mistake.
Housing a historical museum in a historic building is a natural fit. Walking into that bank building feels like taking a trip back in time. It sets the mood for what you’re about to see and learn. Old places, with their unique architecture and musty smells, help connect us with distant times and forgotten ways.
That’s why Henry Ford moved all those old buildings, like Thomas Edison’s laboratory, to Greenfield Village.
Sure, the great inventor’s chemistry equipment and strange gadgets could be displayed in any modern building behind glass cases, but would they have the same impact as being able to view them while standing in the same spot as Edison himself? I don’t think so.
Viewing Oxford’s history in the town’s old bank is very apropos for it was this financial institution that helped build the town we live in.
This is where the working man’s earnings were squirreled away, entrepreneurs found capital for their ventures and families got the money to build or buy that first home.
From the mortgage on the family farm to little Timmy’s first savings account started with silver dollars from grandma, the community bank is a driving force in a small town’s history.
We need to look beyond our billfolds and keep the historical museum exactly where it is.
Instead of worrying about how we can slide a new business inside the museum building, why don’t we concentrate on filling up the myriad of vacancies that currently exist throughout downtown Oxford such as the old Starbucks space, the recently-vacated Cottage Inn space, the former antique mall (that’s a big one), the building that used to house A Familiar Taste, those empty spaces behind the Ox Bar & Grill . . . shall I go on?
Or how about trying to find someone to purchase and develop those three vacant lots along E. Burdick St. that the DDA’s been trying to sell for many, many moons?
There certainly are a lot of holes to plug downtown.
When all of those are filled and businesses are banging down our door looking for more space, then we can debate selling the museum building.
****
I genuinely felt bad for Ron Davis, director of the Oxford Township Parks and Recreation Department.
It seems the parks department owes the village about $7,000 for back phone bills. To be fair, the village hadn’t charged the parks department for their portion of the phone bill since July 2009. Financial management at its finest . . .
Anyway, as Davis and the council discussed the matter last week, I couldn’t help but wonder why Councilwoman Maureen Helmuth didn’t simply offer to loan him the money to pay off the village? He’s a friend, right?
Better still, Davis should just slip an I.O.U. for $7,000 into the village’s cash drawer. That’s a standard municipal practice ? just ask any auditor.

Little Johnny had a big problem.
He got his report card and things weren’t looking so good. He got one C, three D’s and an F.
On top of that, he got his MEAP test results and they weren’t so hot either.
Little Johnny was sure his parents were going to kill him for doing so poorly.
They were probably going to take away his cell phone, iPod, laptop computer and Xbox 360. They might even cancel his Facebook account and start making him do chores around the house.
The possibility of suffering these cruel and unusual punishments frightened little Johnny very much. So, Little Johnny did what everyone in the adult world does when they want to make something bad look good ? he found himself an ‘expert? to plead his case to his parents.
Little Johnny went on-line and found an expert in education who had a B.S. in B.S., a master’s degree in sophistry and a Ph.D in excuses.
A few days later, Little Johnny presented his parents with his report card and MEAP scores.
As can be expected, they hit the ceiling. Just as they were starting to yell at him and dole out various punishments, Little Johnny introduced his expert.
The expert explained to Little Johnny’s parents that grades and test scores were of no real value when it came to measuring how much a child was learning, how hard a student was studying or how successful he or she would be in the future. The expert baffled them with charts, graphs, statistics, university studies, technical jargon and articles from obscure academic journals that no one’s ever heard of.
He told them how each child is so very different that it’s virtually impossible to come up with an adequate way to judge how much they’re learning. Even if they could, the expert said it’s no measure of how well they’re prepared for the future because college life will undo all their K-12 learning with its endless distractions and temptations such as parties, drinking and late night co-ed biological explorations.
The conclusion to the expert’s presentation was done entirely in Chinese, which Little Johnny’s parents didn’t understand, but they were nonetheless very impressed because it sounded so authoritative and worldly.
At the end of his spiel, Little Johnny’s parents fell to their knees and apologized to their son for judging him so harshly.
The next week they went before the school board and demanded that grades and tests be banned from the district.
They even held a press conference to tell the whole world how meaningless these academic measurements are.
A few months later, during summer vacation, a change came over Little Johnny and for some reason, he decided to take his studies more seriously when the new school year began.
It worked because Little Johnny’s first report card of the year featured two A’s and three B’s.
When Little Johnny showed his good grades to his parents this time, they weren’t terribly interested or impressed because of what the education expert had told them.
So, Little Johnny brought the expert to his house again, this time to explain why grades and test scores are so very important and how they’re the only way to truly measure what a child is learning. By the end of the presentation, Little Johnny’s parents were carrying him around the room on their shoulders and telling him how proud they were.
Just before the expert left, he handed Little Johnny his card and said, ‘Give me call in a few years if you don’t do well on the ACT. I’ve got a whole presentation explaining why it doesn’t really matter.?
The next day, Little Johnny’s parents went to the school board to boast about how smart their son was and how every student should emulate him. They even issued a press release about their son’s academic success and paid to have him featured on an infomercial disguised as a news program called ‘Michigan’s Best Students.?
So what’s the moral of the story?
When you fail, use experts to downplay, spin, distract and shift blame. When you succeed, brag like there’s no tomorrow about how you’re the best in the world.
The key to success in life is only taking responsibility for the good stuff ? and having plenty of scapegoats and excuses for the bad stuff.

Never let it be said I can’t admit a mistake or correct an error.
Last week, I wrote that Oxford Schools ranked 28th out of Oakland County’s 28 school districts in terms of college-preparedness based on the ACT.
Actually, the district is ranked 28th out of the 65 high schools in the county, which included traditional high schools as well as alternative education (like Crossroads for Youth) and adult education schools.
So, Oxford’s not last in the county rankings, it’s in the middle of the pack.
It should be noted that the majority of the 21 county high schools listed that had 0 percent college-ready were alternative or adult education schools.
When the error was pointed out to me last week, I immediately corrected the on-line version of my column and wrote what you’re reading right now.
Just to be clear, the other facts stated in the column were completely accurate including the fact that 18.3 percent of Oxford’s high school seniors are considered college-ready based on ACT scores.
It’s also still accurate that 29.1 percent of Lake Orion’s seniors and 24.7 percent of Clarkston’s seniors are considered college-ready.
Lake Orion and Clarkston are ranked countywide 13th and 18th, respectively.
One thing I didn’t mention in last week’s column that I found interesting was at Brandon High School ? our former FML rival to the west ? 19.4 percent of their seniors are considered college-ready. Brandon’s ranked 26th.
Holly High School outdid Brandon with 20.9 percent college-ready and a county ranking of 25th.
Outside Oakland County, I found it interesting that in Lapeer Community Schools ? our neighbor to the north ? the two high schools differed so greatly.
At Lapeer East High School, 19.8 percent of the seniors are college-ready, while at Lapeer West HS the percentage is only 14.2.
College readiness is defined as the percentage of students that meet the following minimum scores on the ACT: 18 on English, 21 on reading, 22 on math and 24 on science.
Again, sorry for the mistake.
****
Thanks to Barbara Johnston and Steve Allen for having the courage to speak up about the school district’s frivolous spending of bond savings. I was beginning to think no one out there cared.

It’s nice to know that as the rest of us try to make ends meet in the face of rising gas prices and rising grocery bills, the Oxford school district still has plenty of money to burn.
Just take a gander at the laundry list of wasteful spending its planning to engage in (see Page 1).
The school district’s saving approximately $1.2 million in bond money because the construction bids came back lower than expected for Phase 1 and 2 of the $32.7 million bond project.
Is the school district using this considerable savings to help pay off the bond debt? Heck no!
Our glorious leaders are planning to spend it on a whole bunch of stuff we really don’t need.
For instance, they’re planning to spend $399,372 on tennis courts for Oxford High School. You remember those tennis courts, don’t you?
They were part of the February 2009 bond proposal that district voters failed and were not part of the November 2009 bond proposal that voters approved.
As someone who personally and editorially endorsed the second bond proposal because it was supposed to be about needs, not wants, I definitely feel betrayed.
But hey, who cares what the voters did at the ballot box or if taxpayers save a few dollars in the long run, a world-class school district needs tennis courts.
We can’t let the people’s common sense trump our leaders? grand vision.
How can our kids be expected to compete with the Chinese in the global marketplace if they can’t play tennis?
Right now, there are millions of Chinese kids mastering the continental grip, so they can effectively hit a slice shot.
Sure, you laugh now, but how will you feel when the Chinese start dominating Wimbledon?
You know what else a world-class district needs?
A $37,900 pressbox for a middle school athletic stadium.
As long as we’re putting in a pressbox, we might as well throw in $107,900 for bleachers at the middle school stadium.
And finally how can Oxford be expected to be ranked among the world’s finest educational institutions if we don’t spend $119,000 to build a new and separate entrance for the high school’s Performing Arts Center?
We have to spend this money because A) we saved it and B) it’s for the kids. We’re certainly not spending it to feed egos, pad resumes or keep up with the Joneses.
I’m sure there are some killjoys out there who will argue that spending all this bond savings on these frivolous additions while simultaneously complaining about proposed education funding cuts from Lansing is the height of hypocrisy and arrogance.
But it should be noted that bond money cannot be legally spent on a school district’s operational expenses.
Granted, all of the money comes from the same source ? the taxpayers ? and the school district could generate a ton of good will in the community by using this savings to help pay off some bond debt.
But then again, the district’s main goal here is to become ‘world-class? and that means spending money.
Vision isn’t cheap. If it’s truly a vision, you’ll never have enough money to realize it.
By all means, let’s keep spending tons on these unnecessary big-ticket items instead of using the money to lessen the taxpayers? debt burden.
After all, if history’s any guide, we’re probably only a few years away from the next big bond proposal because it’s never enough for the schools. There is no light at the end of the school debt tunnel, only a revolving door.
Maybe buying all this stuff will distract people from the fact that only 18.3 percent of our high school seniors are considered college-ready by the ACT scores.
Maybe parents won’t notice that Oxford ranked 28th out of the county’s 65 high schools in college-preparedness.
Maybe they won’t notice that Clarkston had 24.7 percent of their seniors ready for college and ranked 18th in the county. Or that our archrival Lake Orion had 29.1 percent college-ready based on the ACT and ranked 13th.
But hey, the ACT isn’t all that important, right?
Oh, I’m sorry, Oxford Superintendent Dr. William Skilling did you wish to say something, sir?
‘The reason I care more about the ACT (is) because it’s a true norm reference test that’s valid and a true predictor of future success . . . What’s really important to us is that ACT because that’s what determines scholarships; that determines what students have access to in terms of what schools they can get into or not,? said Skilling in a July 2009 interview.
I guess we all should cross our fingers and hope Oxford’s students earn lots of tennis scholarships.

In an effort to double its number of viewers, Oxford Community Television is expected to formally announce April 1 a new lineup of locally-based reality television shows.
‘Our research indicates the only people interested in watching an endless stream of government meetings are those in comas or those recovering from lobotomies,? said station manager Lon Huguenot. ‘We need to spice things up a bit, so we’re doing what everybody in television does ? ripping off other people’s ideas.?
Here’s a preview of the new shows:
False Idol ? Picture a combination of ‘Survivor? and ‘The Apprentice.? School employees scramble to obey the superintendent’s every whim under the constant threat of being fired. The highlight of the show will be ‘loyalty tests? in which the employees must publicly prove their fanatical devotion or else risk being thrown off a moving school bus. Watch out for informants and spies, they’re lurking everywhere!
The Crammys ? Picture an awards show where folks don’t win based on effort, talent or actual deeds. This awards show is all about who you know and the unique ability to pat yourself on the back while smooching others? hindquarters.
So You Think You Can Govern? ? Hijinks and hilarity ensue as people who lack personal responsibility and possess limited skills are given millions of your dollars to spend. Watch them sabotage and badmouth each other behind the scenes when they think the cameras are off, then become best friends when the tape is rolling.
Are You Smarter than a 12th-grader? ? Instead of being upset and outraged by the fact that only 18.3 percent of local high school seniors are considered college-ready, we’re going to celebrate it with a game show.
Guppy Tank ? Forget rich, successful entrepreneurs judging the merits of new business ideas. This show pits business people against government folks. Watch as the business people try desperately to discuss jobs, profits and investment, while the government folks focus on pretty facades, parking spaces and how many trees and shrubs will be required for site plan approval.
Extreme Makeover: Personality Edition ? This show seeks to stamp out individuality, critical thinking and differences of opinion using a team of motivational speakers, self-help gurus and other con artists. Watch as normal people quit reality cold turkey as they join the Cult of Positivity. Fake smiles and vacant stares are all the rage these days, so this show is bound to be a monster hit.
* Warning: This column is intended to be a bit of April Fools? Day humor. Any resemblance to real people either living, dead or in-between is purely intentional. Those who take themselves way too seriously or are constantly on the hunt for something to be offended by should not read this. If you suddenly feel yourself becoming indignant while reading this, immediately go out and purchase a sense of humor.

A friend of mine, Oxford resident Bob Morrison, recently got me interested in the cancelled HBO series ‘Deadwood.?
He loaned me all three seasons on DVD and I spent hours upon hours watching them all in just a few weeks.
I absolutely love this series about the gritty, rough-and-tumble town of Deadwood, South Dakota set in the 1870s.
The plots are fantastic. The characters are well-written and well-acted. They really draw you in, especially my favorite, saloon/brothel owner Al Swearengen.
I highly recommend the series to everyone, except those who don’t like vulgar language. ‘Deadwood? is laden with profanity, but then again, so is real life.
Anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed everything about the series except for the way it ended.
The main bad guy, a mining tycoon named George Hearst, is simply allowed to leave town. Hearst had people murdered and beaten. He threatened, bullied and cheated people left and right. Hearst wanted to run Deadwood like a dictator.
Despite doing all this, he was ultimately allowed to exit Deadwood riding atop a stage coach, off to increase his fortune elsewhere.
Frankly, I wanted to see Swearengen cut Hearst’s throat and leave him for dead on his saloon floor. Swearengen’s quite good with a knife.
But it didn’t happen and that left my natural need for justice unfulfilled.
You see I’m the type of person who needs to see the fictional bad guy get punished. He needs to end up dead, go to prison, lose his fortune or end up exposed for what he truly is before the whole world.
As much as I hate it when the bad guy gets away in TV shows and movies, I hate it even more when it happens in real life.
Case in point, I’m still pretty upset that Oxford Village Councilwoman Maureen ‘Moe? Helmuth will not face any criminal charges whatsoever for helping cover-up an alleged embezzlement of village tax dollars back in 2006-07.
Helmuth discovered the alleged embezzlement and chose not to report it. Instead, she admitted to loaning money to the accused, Deputy Clerk M. Patricia Paad, so she could repay the municipality and conceal the alleged theft.
Basically, Helmuth’s not going to be prosecuted because she’s a ‘necessary witness? against Paad. In order to prosecute the case, Helmuth needs to testify in court. There’s no way around it, according to the prosecutor’s office.
Now, my need for justice in the real world is going unfulfilled.
Helmuth’s not going to be prosecuted, even though she should be.
My fellow village residents are apparently too lazy and/or apathetic to kick her off council through a recall drive.
It appears no one on council has the guts to publicly reprimand Helmuth or demand her resignation. I realize the village attorney advised them not to publicly comment on the Paad situation given she’s still a village employee, however, council could express their opinions on what Helmuth admitted to doing because she is an elected official and she’s not facing any charges.
As for Helmuth, she doesn’t have enough class ? or at least a healthy sense of shame ? to do the honorable thing and resign from council.
So where does that leave the village?
I tell you where it leaves this village.
It leaves this community with a so-called leader who admitted to discovering an alleged crime and not reporting it.
It leaves this community with a so-called leader who by her own admission helped cover-up an alleged theft of tax dollars.
It leaves this community with a so-called leader whose silence about the alleged embezzlement in 2006-07 may have led to the $5,000 in village tax money that’s currently missing.
By all means, let’s keep telling everyone how ‘world-class? Oxford is and how our town ‘rocks,? while we allow someone who was complicit in an alleged crime and violated the public’s trust to represent us and spend our money.
Let’s just bury our heads in the sands of vacuous positivity.
Our leaders are good at it.
Our citizens are good at it.
Maybe the village’s new symbol should be the ostrich.
Note: I definitely like the idea of moving the firearm deer season opener to a Saturday. Fits my work schedule perfectly, helps the sport of hunting and aids the state economy. Sounds like a winner.

Some folks out there favor the idea of government giving tax abatements to businesses in order to spur economic growth.
The logic is a business that spends less on taxes is more willing to reinvest in equipment and facilities, expand its operations and hire more employees.
In turn, this growth leads to more taxable revenue for government.
While I definitely agree that taxes are a significant hindrance to economic growth and entrepreneurial vigor, I don’t think abatements are the answer.
I’m opining on this subject this week because two manufacturers in Oxford Village ? Royal Oak Boring and Royal Oak Medical Devices ? have approached the municipality about giving them each 12-year abatements on their personal property taxes.
The companies plan to spend a combined $3.95 million on new equipment for their village facilities and as a result, hire 23 new employees. That’s definitely great news and should be applauded.
However, to me, if you have to offer businesses property tax abatements ? which are essentially bribes ? to lure them here or convince them to reinvest in your community then your taxes are too high to begin with.
Case in point, the village alone levies 10.62 mills, which is a ridiculously excessive tax rate to provide services for a 1.4-square-mile area. Businesses don’t care that the village has its very own police department and DPW; all they see is a high tax bill.
School districts around the state, including Oxford, practically rape local businesses with their ability to levy up to 18 mills on non-homestead properties.
Add in the 6-mill State Education Tax and businesses pay 24 mills for public education ? not including all those wonderful extras like bond debts and sinking funds.
If you ask me, the answer to stimulating local economies is not tax abatements for the few, it’s tax cuts for everyone coupled with the wholesale downsizing, elimination and consolidation of local governments and school districts.
Let’s save village taxpayers 10.62 mills by dissolving the unnecessary and costly village government once and for all.
(Actually, the savings would be 7.7048 mills because village residents would begin paying the township’s police tax, which is still lower.)
Let’s reform school funding in this state, so we’re not robbing businesses by forcing them to pay four times what the average homeowner pays for public education.
Between property taxes and the constant stream of donation requests from various clubs, sports teams and booster groups, local businesses have a tremendous weight put on them by the schools.
Instead of abating personal property taxes for businesses, we should be looking at abolishing them altogether.
It’s ridiculous that we tax the equipment and furnishings businesses use.
When a business purchases new machinery, computers or even office furniture, they should pay the sales tax and be done with it. They shouldn’t be taxed on these items year after year after year.
While we’re at it, we should be looking at abolishing real property taxes as well. And not just for businesses, for everyone.
Instead of taxing people’s property, which is an antiquated and inefficient way of doing things, all governments should rely primarily on a system of sales taxes to generate their revenues.
Sales taxes are by far the fairest way to tax people because they’re based strictly on consumption. Those who consume more, pay more in taxes. Those who consume less, pay less in taxes.
Essentially, what a person can afford coupled with their spending habits determines how much they pay in taxes.
The bottom-line is we need to reform the whole tax system at the local and state levels instead of having communities use abatements to prostitute themselves.
If the government officials who offer tax abatements are the pimps, what do you think that makes us?

I’ve never been attracted to meek or subservient women. I’ve never understood men who would rather have a shadow than an equal.
By the same token, I’ve never liked women who annoyingly spout off about ’empowerment? and ‘sisterhood? while sporting some inane inspirational wristband.
Or women whose lives revolve around purses, shoes and imitating ‘Sex and the City? characters.
That’s why 10 years ago I was fortunate enough to marry a woman who wasn’t a cliche; a woman who didn’t neatly fit some stereotypical mold.
My wife, Connie, is truly a unique woman who challenges me ? in a good way ? every day with her intelligence, her passion and her sheer will to persevere.
I have never known a woman ? or man for that matter ? with the inner strength to overcome the obstacles she’s faced with such grace and dignity.
Connie’s survived toxic relationships, life-threatening illness, dire financial straits, emotional trauma and the potential loss of her beloved home.
Anyone else would have thrown in the towel years ago, but not Connie. She faced each situation head-on and refused to let it beat her.
Connie could have easily claimed the mantle of victimhood, as unfortunately so many in our society do these days. But she never did. She never once blamed others, sought pity or became bitter.
Even more impressive than her will to fight on as darkness descends around her is Connie’s capacity for self-sacrifice, empathy and friendship.
She always puts others? needs ahead of her own.
And she doesn’t do it because some book tells her to or because it feeds her ego. Connie genuinely cares for others because that’s just who she is. Helping comes as natural to her as breathing.
When there’s a worthy cause in need of extra hands or a creative mind, she doesn’t hesitate to volunteer, no matter how tired or busy she may be.
When a friend’s in need, Connie’s always there with an ear to listen, a shoulder to lean on and a free hand to block a cameraman. She’d take on the world to defend a friend because her loyalty knows no bounds.
Everyone should have a friend like my wife. Someone who listens without judgment, accepts without conditions and loves without limit.
I don’t admire many people, but I admire my wife.
I don’t trust many people, but I trust her implicitly.
Knowing Connie has truly made me a better person.
Having access to her mind and opinions has made me a more thoughtful writer.
Being the recipient of her love has plugged all the holes in my heart and my soul.
I’m so glad she’s in my life and I’m so pleased to be able to celebrate another one of her birthdays today.
I couldn’t imagine my life without her.
I guess it’s sort of my birthday, too because I feel like I was reborn when she came into my life.
Happy Birthday, Connie!
And thanks for everything.

In last week’s column, I opined on the two options I see facing Oxford Village Councilwoman Maureen ‘Moe? Helmuth as consequences for betraying the public’s trust.
To me, she should either resign her seat on council or the public should petition for her recall.
I believe she’s no longer fit to serve.
Helmuth’s status as a council member aside, there is a third potential consequence for her decision to place a friendship above her duty as a public official.
Helmuth could face criminal charges for admitting that she helped a village employee cover-up an alleged embezzlement of $2,000 to $3,500 in property tax monies paid to the municipality.
Roughly five years ago, when Helmuth was employed as deputy village treasurer, she discovered the alleged embezzlement by the deputy clerk, but instead of reporting it, she loaned money to repay it and kept quiet about it until finally speaking up on Jan. 25 of this year.
I spoke with some legal experts and they seemed to agree Helmuth could be charged with misconduct in office, a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.
Helmuth’s offense could be considered either malfeasance, which is the doing of a wrongful act, or nonfeasance, which is the failure to perform an act required by the duties of the office.
She could also face a charge of willful neglect of duty, a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail.
Based on my conversations and research, it’s unclear to me whether Helmuth was a public officer or public employee when she was deputy treasurer at the time of the alleged embezzlement, loan and cover-up. This is significant because misconduct in office applies only to public officers as distinguished from public employees.
However, it is very clear that Helmuth continued to keep quiet about the alleged embezzlement during her subsequent term as village treasurer from 2007-08 and for 16 months after her election to council in 2009. Both positions are defined as public officers and she had a duty to immediately report her knowledge of an alleged crime against the village, especially when the alleged perpetrator continued to work and handle money for the municipality. So, a misconduct charge could apply here.
Of course, all of this will be up to the Oakland County Prosecutor’s Office to decide. I’m quite confident that if they believe a law’s been broken, Helmuth will be charged.
One of the things that distinguishes this country from most of the world is the fact we follow the rule of law.
No matter who you are, what you do for a living or how much money you have, we are all subject to the same laws. We are all expected to obey the law and we are all subject to punishment when we break it. Prosecutions aren’t based on whether or not we like a person.
The last time I checked we’re not allowed to break the law as long as we’re doing it to help a friend.
The last time I checked a public official isn’t permitted to ignore their duty and disregard the law as long as they’re doing it to help a friend.
The last time I checked we don’t get a pass for violating the law if we volunteer with kids or have a big heart.
Blaming others, making sappy, cliche-filled excuses and tugging at people’s heartstrings doesn’t trump the law nor does it justify doing the wrong thing.
Right is right. Wrong is wrong. The law is the law.
What Helmuth admitted to doing was wrong and she should be subject to consequences.

Loyalty to a friend is certainly an admirable trait.
But when that loyalty leads a government official to betray the public’s trust in favor of helping a friend cover-up an alleged crime, a serious line has been crossed.
The penalty for crossing that line should be either resignation or recall. To me, those are the two options facing Oxford Village Councilwoman Maureen ‘Moe? Helmuth right now. See story on Page 1.
By her own admission, it was Helmuth who, while serving as the village’s deputy treasurer five years ago, discovered that deputy clerk M. Patricia Paad had allegedly taken between $2,000 and $3,500 in village tax money for her own personal use.
Did Helmuth report this to the village manager, council or police? No.
By her own admission, she chose to protect her friend by loaning Paad the money to repay what she had allegedly embezzled from the village.
Helmuth then remained silent about the alleged incident for the next five years until Jan. 25 when her concerns about Paad’s honesty, as pertaining to her candidacy for the village clerk position, led her to inform Manager Joe Young of what had allegedly transpired.
Too little, too late. Helmuth is no hero here for finally speaking up. She’s no hero for putting the needs of a friend above her obligation to the taxpayers.
She shouldn’t have loaned Paad the money and she shouldn’t have kept quiet. If she truly believed there was wrongdoing here, it was Helmuth’s duty as deputy treasurer to speak up, but she did not.
In fact, Helmuth remained silent as she was promoted to treasurer in 2007 and later, elected to council in 2009.
Helmuth’s questioning of Paad’s honesty is a classic example of the pot calling the kettle the black.
Where was Helmuth’s honesty as she helped conceal an alleged crime against village taxpayers not only with her silence, but with her very own money?
I know Helmuth’s fan base will probably come after me for writing this column because she’s a pretty popular person around here. Everybody loves Helmuth because she’s the one who helped them with their water bills, cut-through the village’s red tape on those building permits or bought the last round before closing time.
But no matter how popular she is, no matter how many favors she’s done for others, what Helmuth did in this case was flat-out wrong and it should most definitely cost her the council seat she occupies.
To me, Paad’s innocence or guilt in this matter is a separate issue where Helmuth’s fate is concerned.
The bottom-line is Helmuth admitted she had knowledge of an alleged crime. She admitted she helped conceal it. She admitted to saying nothing for five years.
Village residents should be asking themselves a lot of questions right now. What else has Helmuth kept quiet about? What else has she done? What else is she capable of doing? Who does she serve ? the taxpayers or her friends? Can she be trusted?
Is this really the type of person village residents want sitting on their council, representing their community and making decisions about how to spend their money?
This 10-year village resident says no.
When it comes to choosing public officials to safeguard my tax money, I don’t care how popular they are or what a ‘true blue? friend they are. I want people who uphold the law, do their duty and honor the public’s trust.
Time for Moe to go.

Oxford is about to lose its real Citizen of the Year.
A few weeks ago I wrote a story about how Hank Szlenkier is leaving this community on Monday, Feb. 14 after 19 years of faithful service.
Hank is the caseworker for Oxford-Addison Youth Assistance, an organization dedicated to helping at-risk kids by reducing delinquency, abuse and neglect.
Hank’s movin? on up the Oakland County Youth Assistance ladder by taking charge of the Mentors Plus program, which pairs at-risk youth with adult volunteers serving as positive role models.
Our loss is clearly their gain.
A new caseworker will be sent to fill Hank’s job, but she will never be able to fill his shoes.
Hank is different than many of the government-types I’ve encountered over the last 12 years in that he’s humble, hard-working and truly cares about what he does and the community he serves.
Unlike others, he doesn’t play politics, seek out the limelight or spend his days glad-handing. He just does his job ? a very rare thing these days.
Hank never started a project he didn’t finish.
In fact, he often completed projects that others had started or committed to on OAYA’s behalf.
It may sound corny or cliche, but Hank reminds me of a modern-day Father Flanagan, the Catholic priest who founded the famous Boys Town in 1921.
Like Flanagan, he never views any kid as a lost cause. He’s always willing to do whatever is necessary to prevent a youth from ending up in jail, on the streets, in a hospital or in a coffin.
Each kid he helps isn’t just another folder on his desk.
He knows their names. He knows their faces. He knows their stories. He knows their problems.
Hank becomes whatever those kids need be it a friend, a counselor, a mentor or a father-figure. He knows that sometimes what a kid needs most is just someone to listen.
As a journalist, I greatly appreciated the fact that Hank was always open and honest with me. He’d let me know what was going on behind the scenes and he didn’t pull any punches.
Hank’s a ‘tell it like it is? kind of a guy. What you see is what you get with him.
As a result, whenever Hank needed a story to promote one of OAYA’s many wonderful programs or fund-raisers, I was there, from the Children’s Community Garden to the annual Duck Race.
I’m going to miss Hank a lot.
He’s definitely one of the good guys ? someone who’s true to his word, committed to his work and helpful to those in need.
It seems like the good guys always leave much too soon while the bad guys stick around forever.
So long, Hank. Best of luck and don’t be a stranger.
Note: Happy 94th birthday to Oxford’s favorite retired cobbler, Perry Hathaway. He owned and operated Perry’s Shoe Service in downtown Oxford from 1950-89.

I’m beginning to think this 235-year-old experiment in self-government is a failure. I’m starting to wonder if it’s really worth voting for or against anything or anyone because ultimately, those who hold power are going to get what they want one way or another.
We might as well stay home on Election Day and enjoy our bread and circuses because the Emperor has the vision to know what’s best for us.
Case in point, it appears Oxford Community Schools could get those new tennis courts it wanted for the high school.
You may recall that tennis courts were part of the $70 million school bond proposal that district voters FAILED in February 2009. That proposal included four courts at $40,000 each for a total of $160,000.
The slimmed-down $32.7 million bond proposal that voters approved in November 2009 contained no mention whatsoever of tennis courts ? at least not in the bond application that I read.
If you recall, the second bond proposal was supposed to focus on needs, not wants; essentials, not luxuries.
Now, we’re being told that if the bond project’s bids come in lower than expected, the district could use the resulting savings to build eight tennis courts for $320,000.
Am I happy that the district could save a bundle?
You bet. I just did a cartwheel.
Am I happy that instead of just saving money, they want to waste it on something frivolous?
Not on your life. Whatever happened to the concept of saving money purely for the sake of saving it, not because you want to spend it on something else?
Do I believe it’s wrong to spend tax money for something the voters originally rejected?
Well, I’m writing this column, aren’t I?
To me, if the school district does this, it’s thumbing its nose at the voters. The district’s basically saying, ‘We know you denied us the money for this the first time, but we’re going to find a way to get what we want ? and we’re going to double it! Your ballot said ‘no, no,? but we say ‘yes, yes.??
Granted, what the school district wants to do is within the bounds of the law because it falls under the very broad language of ‘constructing, equipping, developing and improving athletic facilities? that appeared on the ballot.
But does this make it morally right? Does that make it ethically correct? My answer is a resounding ‘NO!?
When a bond is placed on the ballot, the voters are presented with a whole laundry list of everything the school district wants to construct and purchase. This enables the people to make an informed decision as to whether or not it’s worth taking on extra debt and taxing themselves for it.
To not include something in that list prior to the vote, then add it in after the funding’s been secured is dirty pool in my book. It’s a classic case of bait-and-switch.
I don’t care if it’s legal. I don’t care if a significant savings allows for it. It’s wrong, especially when it’s something the voters previously rejected.
Why even bother to tell the voters what you want the money for if you’re just going to build and buy what you want anyway?
Oh, that’s right. We at least have to maintain the facade of adhering to democratic principles lest the unwashed masses become disgruntled and revolt.
So, when it comes right down to it, elections are just for show. It’s all about romancing the voters ? whispering sweet nothings in their ears, telling them what they want to hear in order to seal the deal.
Once it gets what it wants, government stops calling or even returning our messages. No more dinners. No more roses. Not even cab fare. Being a voter is supposed to make you feel proud and responsible, not used and cheap.
Anyone else need a shower? I feel dirty.
*****
Oh, by the way, if this community is truly in such desperate need of tennis courts, then why don’t we get the Oxford Township Parks and Recreation Department to fix up the existing courts at Seymour Lake Park that have been allowed to fall into such disrepair over the years.
Back in 2002, the parks department asked voters for a millage increase to, among other things, tear out and reconstruct the tennis courts at Seymour Lake Park.
‘Deplorable condition? was how Parks Director Ron Davis described the courts? condition back then.
Voters rejected the tax increase 3,177 to 2,083.
But if something’s drastically changed in the last nine years and now, Oxford simply can’t live without tennis, then by all means, let’s push the parks department to seek a millage increase for the sole purpose of renovating and maintaining those sorry-looking courts.
It should pass overwhelmingly, right?
Better still, why not start a private fund-raising campaign to do it? We built a giant playground and splash pad at that same park thanks to such campaigns; why not do it for the tennis courts that people are clamoring for?
Maybe we could find a mysterious private investor to loan us the money just like the turf committee did.
Then we can get to work on that dodgeball arena because we have to accommodate every single sport out there.

From the cigar-chomping Lt. Columbo to the obsessive-compulsive Adrian Monk, I’ve always loved quirky detectives and a good mystery.
My favorite part was when Columbo or Monk would go up against a smug bad guy who underestimated their abilities. In the end, these detectives always won because they knew how to do their job ? and it’s television.
There’s a big mystery in Oxford right now and I’m forced to wonder why.
Some mystery investor ? an individual, group or company ? is going to loan the Oxford Turf Committee the hundreds of thousands of dollars necessary to blanket the OHS football field with navy blue synthetic turf (see story on Page 3).
Jim Reis, head of the turf committee, indicated this mystery investor wishes to remain anonymous. He refuses to divulge their identity or any of the loan’s terms.
My question is why all the secrecy?
I’ve come up with three possibilities:
A) It’s a truly benevolent soul who knows that genuine good deeds should always be performed anonymously whenever possible.
B) It’s a person who wants to do good things with their excess cash, but doesn’t want the publicity because he or she doesn’t relish the prospect of facing a sea of outstretched hands from every group that needs a buck.
C) It’s a person or company who stands to profit or benefit in some other way from Oxford having synthetic turf. Who knows, maybe the company that’s going to install the turf is the one fronting the money, so they can drum up business elsewhere by using Oxford as part of their marketing plan?
Which is it? I honestly don’t know. I have my own ideas and theories, but I want facts.
If it turns out to be either scenario A or B, certainly this newspaper would respect the investor’s request for anonymity. However, if it’s option C ? or something else along those lines ? then the public needs to know.
I’ve already submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the school district asking for the investor’s name and contact information.
By law, if that information appears on any document or communication in the district’s possession, it’s now part of the public record and they have to release it.
I’m curious about who this mystery investor is because it’s my job as a journalist and frankly, I want to make sure everything’s on the up and up ? and that the taxpayers aren’t going to be left holding the bag.
While it’s true the turf committee is a private group, it’s also true that the football stadium is a publicly-owned facility on publicly-owned property. Therefore, I feel the public has a right to know all the aspects of this deal.
I’m truly sorry that I lack the childlike ability to blindly trust the school board and turf committee ? the latter of which is not accountable to the voters or taxpayers.
Sure, I could shut my eyes, take a big swig of Kool-Aid and join the Amen Chorus. But that’s not me. I want to know the who, the why and all the details in between like will this loan have to be repaid with interest?
I don’t think being offered a boatload of cash is a good enough reason to shut off our brains.
I’m sure there are those reading this column who will immediately begin denouncing me all over town as a nattering nabob of negativism.
To them, I say if asking questions and wanting answers is deemed negative behavior, then we’ve got bigger problems than the current lack of fake grass.

I received a call a few weeks ago that really disturbed me for a myriad of reasons.
The young man, who did not identify himself, wanted a story about him removed from our website because his criminal record had now been ‘expunged.?
Apparently, he didn’t like the fact that when his name was Googled, an article I wrote about the crime he committed during his days as an Oxford High School student is the first thing that pops up.
In his mind, now that his criminal record had been ‘expunged,? the news article about him should disappear as well.
When I explained to him that’s not the way things work, he promptly hung up on me. Anybody remember manners?
So we’re all on the same page here, let’s be clear that expungement of a criminal record doesn’t mean that a person was found not guilty in a court of law. It simply means that his or her prior conviction has been set aside.
Having one’s criminal record expunged basically means the law is supposed to treat a person as if they had never been convicted. An expunged conviction is not supposed to appear on a person’s rap sheet.
Expungement does not, however, change history.
It does not mean that a person is entitled to have newspaper articles that were written about them and their crime erased from existence.
Wiping clean someone’s criminal record doesn’t suddenly negate the facts or alter events. It’s not like taking a ride in Doc Brown’s time machine.
This young man’s request sent a chill down my spine because it reminded me of George Orwell’s classic dystopian novel ?1984.?
In this 1949 book about a fictional totalitarian society controlled by a dictatorial figure known as ‘Big Brother,? the main character, Winston Smith, works in the records department of the Ministry of Truth.
Winston’s job is to rewrite historical documents, so they match the constantly changing party line. His duties involve revising newspaper articles and doctoring photographs, mostly to remove ‘unpersons? ? people whom the State now regards as enemies.
Basically, this young man wanted me to do Winston’s job and erase his misdeed from the internet, thereby erasing it from history.
We didn’t get around to whether or not he wanted me to burn all the print copies of the article as well.
All this got me thinking about how easy it’s becoming, thanks to the accursed internet, to rewrite, control, alter or erase information.
With a just few clicks of a mouse, we can change the web pages that now define way too much of our reality.
Thanks to Facebook and Twitter, every one of us has the ability to change our personal profiles a thousand times a day and publish every single inane thought that pops into our heads.
If you ask me, it’s this new-found power that led this young man to believe it was perfectly acceptable to just call up a newspaper and ask that an unflattering article about him be removed, not because it’s untrue or inaccurate, but because its simply inconvenient.
With the stroke of a key we can change our relationship status and add or delete friends; why not erase our crimes, too?
It makes me wonder if we are in danger of becoming a nation of Winstons.
What if I had decided to set aside my ethics as a journalist and honor his request to delete that story from our website?
What if I decided to erase this piece of local history because I felt sorry for him or worse, he paid me to do it?
Honestly, this kind of stuff keeps me up at night.
That’s why I love good old-fashioned ink and paper so much.
Sure, a newspaper can be destroyed by water, fire, shredding, age or an incontinent dog, but in the end, there’s always a copy lurking somewhere.
To this young man who called, and to all the young people out there, I say this ? if you really don’t want your past to haunt you for the rest of your life, don’t do stupid things.
I realize that for many teenagers doing stupid things is like breathing, but use some common sense and fight the urge.
Instead of trying to get his past erased from the Web, this young man should simply explain to those who stumble across my story that he did a dumb thing in high school, but he learned his lesson and he’s a different person now.
I think most people can relate to that.

‘That’s the problem in this country. People are never satisfied with stuff the way it is. You gotta make it bigger and better and stronger and faster.?
? Comedian Denis Leary
You ever notice how the people who supposedly love Oxford the most are constantly proposing ways to fundamentally change the community.
It’s like they’ve fallen in love with the woman of their dreams.
All she needs to do to be perfect is dye her hair a different color, lose the glasses for tinted contact lenses, drop 10 pounds, get a nose job, buy a new wardrobe, take some elocution lessons, and learn how to mix a proper Martini.
I admit that last one sounds pretty good to me.
Anyone else thirsty?
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not against changes that make Oxford a better place by solving some actual problems, downsizing and consolidating government, and helping those who need it.
But the changes these people want are more about turning Oxford into something it’s not.
Their version of change involves building things like community centers and senior centers; paving all the dirt roads; turning every open space that’s left into playgrounds and sports facilities; building lavish school facilities; expanding local government services to the point where we have a cop, firefighter and DPW worker for every household; and coming up with the right combination of buzz words and slick imagery to market ourselves to the sublimely superficial.
There are those who desperately want to transform Oxford into an upscale, hoity-toity community on the order of Oakland County’s capitals of pretension and phoniness, namely Rochester, Royal Oak, Birmingham and Bloomfield Hills.
Some of it’s motivated by people who moved to Oxford from urban areas. They came here because they absolutely adore the country charm, but they want to bring the city with them in the form of costly government services and high millage rates.
Some of it’s motivated by Oxford people who have always had this inferiority complex when they look at their community and compare it to others. Oxford’s always got to keep up with the Joneses in their minds.
Some of it’s motivated by government officials with delusions of grandeur and a desire to pad their resumes for future employment and/or political opportunities.
Thanks to all of these folks, Oxford is definitely changing, but I don’t think it’s changing for the better.
One day, we’re going to wake up and find that girl we fell in love with has become a monster we can no longer stand the sight of. But don’t worry, we can always move to another small town and start ruining it.

Long ago, I gave up on the idea of expecting government to tell the truth. It’s just not in the nature of the beast.
That being said, I at least expect better lies, excuse me, ‘spin? from folks who earn their living avoiding the facts.
Even though this is the third time I’ve written this column, I still like that opening, so I’m going to keep it.
This has been a difficult column to write because the story that sparked it has been developing since I first broke it Friday morning on www.oxfordleader.com.
Of course, the story to which I’m referring is about Oxford Superintendent Dr. William Skilling and the possibility that he might be heading to Ohio to become the new superintendent of the Granville Exempted Village School District (see story on Page 1).
As I sit here rewriting this damn column at 9 p.m. Tuesday, I feel frustrated. Frustrated by the double-talk. Frustrated by the contradictions. Frustrated by the spin, when the facts seem to be pretty clear in my opinion.
Where to begin . . .
Let’s start with the statement that the Oxford Board of Education posted Friday on the district website that basically said Skilling was meeting with the fine folks of Granville simply as a ‘professional courtesy.?
Exactly how stupid do they think we are?
Call me crazy, but I don’t know anyone ? no matter how saintly we believe them to be ? who would take a personal day off work to spend 4? hours driving 260 miles (one way) to another state to meet with a prospective employer and people from that community, if they’re not actually interested in taking a position there.
These actions go way beyond what most people would consider ‘professional courtesy.?
Sure, all those folks who believe everything the school district tells them and possess a messianic view of Skilling swallowed the ‘professional courtesy? story whole and parroted it to all those they met like good little robots.
But those of us who prefer to do our own thinking instead of just chugging the Wildcat Kool-Aid by the gallon, didn’t buy it for a second. It just wasn’t logical.
It walked like a duck. It quacked like a duck. But the school board wanted us to believe it was an aardvark.
To me, the ‘professional courtesy? statement was more of a reflection of the fact that the school board probably got caught with its pants down when the Leader posted its story and needed to say something.
For a school district that employs a Public Relations person and has another one serving on its board of education, I frankly expected something much more believable. The board’s statement reeked of amateur hour.
But the board’s statement is nothing when compared to those statements made by Skilling first via a Dec. 5 e-mail to district staff and select community members, then at the Dec. 6 school board meeting.
Despite the fact that Newark Advocate ? the Ohio newspaper covering the Granville superintendent search ? referred to him as a ‘finalist? for the job in two articles, Skilling insisted he’s ‘not an official applicant? and he’s ‘not an official candidate? for the Granville job.
So, I guess that Dec. 2 posting on the Granville Schools? website (www.granville.k12.oh.us) that clearly stated that Skilling had just been added as the sixth candidate in the district’s superintendent search was a complete lie.
I guess the Dec. 7 posting indicating that Skilling is one of four finalists for the Granville job is also a lie.
After all, you can’t believe what school districts post on their websites ? unless its Oxford’s site because they’re all just a bunch of honest and ethical servant-leaders.
Funny, Skilling stated he was ‘only a person of interest? to Granville and yet the district selected him to be the featured ‘finalist? at a Dec. 3 ‘community dialogue session,? in which he met with the public and talked about himself and his truly amazing vision.
My favorite part in the Newark Advocate story about Skilling’s ‘dialogue session? was when he referred to himself as ‘Don Quixote.? I actually got goose bumps.
According to the Granville website, the district has selected only three other finalists for ‘community dialogue sessions? scheduled for Dec. 9 and Dec. 10.
Golly, I know I’m just a simple country newspaper editor, but it sure as shootin? sounds like Doc Skilling’s a lot more than just ‘a person of interest.? He’s just being humble.
Speaking of that ‘community dialogue session,? I found it interesting that Skilling thought his visit to Granville ‘would be kept confidential? (as he wrote in his Dec. 5 e-mail) because he interviewed with the school board ‘privately? (i.e. in a closed session).
Did he not realize that he’d also be participating in the very first of these ‘community dialogue sessions,? which were advertised ahead of time on the Granville Schools? website and in the Newark Advocate, so as to encourage public attendance and participation?
There’s nothing private or confidential about that.
Anyway . . . I love how Skilling repeatedly stressed at the Dec. 6 Oxford school board meeting that he has not filled out or submitted an application or any paperwork for the Granville job. He kept saying it as if his not doing a few hours worth of paperwork is somehow more meaningful than him taking an entire day off work and driving 260 miles to meet with their school board and community.
In the end, I really have to hand it to Skilling because he is quite the wordsmith. I’m being totally sincere here.
He crafted a statement in his Dec. 5 e-mail that makes him seem totally devoted to Oxford, but at the same time gives him a loophole should he decide to skip town.
Skilling wrote, ‘I do not have any interest in leaving Oxford Community Schools to take another superintendent position in Michigan. If I stay in Michigan, it will be in Oxford. When the day comes for me to leave Oxford, I will be retiring from public education in Michigan.?
Did you notice how he carefully repeated the words ‘in Michigan? not once, not twice, but three times?
For those of you who might not realize this, Ohio is not in Michigan. So, if Skilling decides to take the Granville job, he can’t be called a liar nor can his commitment to his beloved Oxford be questioned. Bravo! Skilling just went from Don Quixote to Niccolo Machiavelli.
If I was a betting man, I’d say Granville is going to offer Skilling the job and he’s going to take it.
They want him down there. They sought him out. In its Dec. 2 web posting announcing Skilling as the sixth candidate, the Granville district noted how he ‘had been a person of interest earlier in the search.?
Sounds like love to me.
Aside from his wife’s relatives living near Columbus, Ohio and Granville being ‘a great place to raise his children? ? all items reported by the Newark Advocate ? moving south of the border would afford Skilling the opportunity to achieve his goal of being a professor.
Denison University’s right in Granville, while Ohio State University in Columbus is just 30-some miles away. There’s also a great little Christian school called Cedarville University on the other side of Columbus.
Taking the Ohio job would also give Skilling one more golden opportunity ? the chance to make some more gold.
He can retire from Michigan’s school system, then collect his pension on top of his new salary in Ohio. Former Clarkston Superintendent Dr. Al Roberts did it when he retired and took a superintendent position in Illinois.
Suddenly, I’m having a psychic vision of a moving truck rolling down Park Street. Stay tuned . . .

For all their phony talk about presenting a ‘united front? to the community and wolfing down free breakfasts together while praising each other, there’s one thing that never fails to get government folks fighting amongst themselves like rabid dogs in a meat-filled pit ? money.
You see in government, money is a zero-sum game.
One entity’s gain is typically another’s loss.
That’s why the fighting gets so savage.
Money’s the lifeblood of government. Less money means less power, less prestige and less job security.
Government is dominated by people with massive egos who cannot tolerate the idea of less anything.
I’m musing about money’s effect on government-types because of the debate over the $145,000 the Oxford Downtown Development Authority annually pays the village for police and DPW services (see Page 1).
Councilman Tony Albensi’s comment about how the DDA’s attempting to ‘strong-arm? the village by bidding out snow removal services currently provided by the DPW gave me a chuckle because I thought back to a meeting that took place on May 23, 2006.
It was that meeting that caused the DDA chairman, vice chair and treasurer to resign in disgust because the village council had just strong-armed them out of a bundle.
Without any input from or discussion with the DDA, council arbitrarily increased the entity’s contribution for police/code enforcement services from $25,000 to $50,000 and raised its contribution for DPW services from $45,000 to $120,000.
‘This body has the final say on the budget,? declared George Del Vigna, who was village president at the time. ‘We didn’t agree with all of (the DDA budget) and so we’re telling you how much money you can spend and not spend.?
Back then, council felt the DDA wasn’t being responsible enough with its money and needed to be reined in.
Funny how that ‘reining in? involved taking more money from the DDA to help beef up the village’s general fund.
Ironically, four years later, council’s whining because the DDA wants to do the fiscally responsible thing and shop around to see if it can get a better deal on snow removal from a private contractor.
Exactly what’s wrong with getting some bids and seeing how they stack up? When did it become a capital offense to see if our tax dollars can be spent more efficiently?
What’s wrong with the DDA wanting to spend less on something like snow removal, so it can spend more on economic development, promotions and increasing the downtown’s walkability ? all the things an effective DDA is supposed to be doing?
As long as the money’s actually invested in the downtown as opposed to giving the DDA director a pay raise or hiring more staff, I’ve got no problem with it.
Where is it carved in stone that the DDA must get all of its services from the village?
Whenever government can get a better deal for a service or product from a private source, it should take it.
Mandating that every service be provided by costly government employees is a luxury that ultimately becomes a heavy financial burden for the taxpayers.
Last year, the village fired an employee and privatized the operation of its water treatment plant in the hopes of saving a bunch of bucks ? which it did.
Why is it now viewed as ‘putting up a wall? against the village for the DDA to basically do the same thing by looking into privatizing downtown’s snow removal?
Could it be because when the village did it, it was to save the municipality some cash, but if the DDA does it, it would mean less money for the village’s coffers?
Hypocrisy, thy name is government.
NOTE: Happy 50th Birthday to OUMC Pastor Doug McMunn.

Thanksgiving ranks as one of my favorite holidays because it’s one of the most politically incorrect, particularly in my household.
The magic begins with the traditional parade of Bloody Marys made from scratch.
Honestly, is there anything better than drinking in the morning while wearing your bathrobe and watching large balloons float down Woodward Avenue?
I think not.
Soon it’s time to pop the old turkey in the oven. This will be third consecutive Thanksgiving in which a wild turkey that I shot will be served.
If my wife didn’t mind, I’d probably wear the bird’s 11?-inch beard to the dinner table.
I won’t do it because she does mind and marriage is all about compromise. That’s why I don’t wear my antlers whenever I grill up venison backstraps.
As much as it will probably upset the pale and sickly-looking vegans and vegetarians out there, there is no ‘Tofurky? (gross!) served in my house. No, sir.
Life’s too short to not eat dead animals. It’s not my fault they’re so delicious, juicy and tender. Blame nature.
The bird on my table is a 100 percent, all-natural turkey that I killed with my trusty 12-gauge Remington Model 870 Wingmaster shotgun.
I know it upsets many of you Lefties out there that average citizens are still allowed to own guns, so it gives me extra pleasure to make my favorite firearm part of my holiday celebration.
Thanksgiving is a uniquely American holiday and what’s America without guns? It was the gun that won our freedom, fed our families, tamed the frontier and defended our homes.
Once the turkey and myriad of side dishes are done, it’s time to eat and indulge in my favorite of the Seven Deadly Sins ? gluttony.
Yes, I know I should be wringing my hands over Third World poverty or fretting about the size of my carbon footprint or worrying if my light bulbs are using too much electricity.
But I’m not doing any of that because I’ve put myself into a gravy-induced coma so as not to feel the pain of my bloated stomach straining against my pants, which must have somehow shrunk in the wash ? again.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Pass the Scotch and Rolaids.

Almost every week, I write columns criticizing government, pointing out the errors of its ways and generally expressing my disdain for those in power.
Over the years, there have been numerous attempts to silence me. They’ve ranged from irate phone calls and letters to lunches with my boss to an anonymous website created by cowards.
But the one thing that’s never happened ? yet ? is throwing me in prison for expressing my opinions and trying to foment reform.
That’s because I’m fortunate enough to live in a country where my writings are protected by the First Amendment.
But not everyone is so lucky.
That’s why I was glad to see that Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo was recognized with the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize.
On Christmas Day 2009, Liu, a former literature professor who was banned from teaching, was sentenced by Chinese authorities to 11 years in prison.
His heinous crime? ‘Subverting state power? ? something he did with his pen.
Liu wrote political tracts calling for the peaceful democratic reform of the Chinese government.
He had the audacity to advocate greater freedoms, human rights, the rule of law, and an end to the Communist Party’s political dominance.
Liu’s spent two decades working for nonviolent political change in China. He served as an adviser to the students who staged the pro-democracy protests at Tiananmen Square in 1989. He dedicated his Nobel Peace Prize to all those innocent folks whom the Chinese government massacred during those protests.
This is Liu’s third time being jailed for for his beliefs. He previously spent three years in a forced labor camp.
Surprise, surprise, the Chinese government was enraged by the Nobel committee’s selection because it highlights for the whole world to see that despite all the fanfare over its booming economy, China is still ruled by a tyrannical group of thugs that deprives its citizens of even the most basic civil liberties.
Jiang Yu, a spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, was quoted as saying, ‘This person you just mentioned was sentenced to jail by Chinese judicial authorities for violating Chinese law. I think his acts are completely contrary to the aspirations of the Nobel Peace Prize.?
Another Foreign Ministry spokesman, Ma Zhaoxu, said, ‘This is an obscenity against the peace prize.?
News of the award was blacked out on Chinese TV.
Wrongful imprisonment. Political censorship. Where’s that ‘new and changing China? I keep hearing about?
Apparently, the Nobel Committee didn’t get the memo that it’s now everyone’s job to promote the ‘correct? image of China, a ‘sanitized? state-sanctioned version.
That means ignoring the brutality, oppression and drive for global dominance, and instead focusing on economics, cute little kids saying cute little things in Chinese and holding PR events like sister school ceremonies.
Ignoring people’s suffering under a despotic regime is easy when you stand to make some money ? morality and ethics be damned.
I guess that’s the American way now.

As I stood on the west side of N. Oxford Road Friday waiting to photograph the Homecoming Parade, I witnessed something that really upset me.
I saw about 10 or 12 children playing atop a massive pile of rock and dirt. And I saw their parents allowing them to do it.
It bothered me for two reasons.
One, it wasn’t a safe thing to do and two, the property was clearly posted with two signs.
One sign read ‘No Trespassing? while a second stated this was ‘Private Property.?
Now, if I could see these signs, I’m sure the parents and kids could too, unless they were all blind. I didn’t see any white canes and guide dogs, so I’m going to assume everyone had 20/20 vision.
So, basically what I witnessed was a blatant disregard for someone’s private property rights and a complete lack of respect for the law.
I don’t fault the kids. Kids make mistakes and errors in judgment all the time. It’s part of being a kid.
I fault the irresponsible parents who allowed this to happen.
Kids look to their parents to tell them when something’s right and when something’s wrong. In this instance, these parents were obviously defective in their role as moral compasses.
I wonder, would these same parents allow their kids to play in someone else’s backyard without the owner’s permission?
Imagine a family walking by a stranger’s house and the dad suddenly says, ‘Hey kids, that looks like a pretty sweet swing set and sand box. Why don’t you guys run back there and play for a while. It’s okay. It doesn’t look like anybody’s home. Go nuts!?
I would hope most parents wouldn’t say something like that, but nowadays you never know. Parents and children have such an overweening sense of entitlement that nothing surprises me anymore.
My question is if it’s not okay to send your kids in someone else’s backyard without permission, why is it okay for them play on someone else’s vacant land?
I know trespassing is a favorite pastime around here. I hunt on a piece of property adjacent to some land owned by a gravel company and I see people trespassing over there all the time ? hunting, riding dirt bikes, walking their dogs and jogging.
I guess if a piece of property doesn’t have a house and garage on it, it’s okay for everyone to use it as they please ? as long as they don’t get caught. Wink, wink.

Lots of stuff to comment on this week.
First of all, hats off to Oxford Township’s Ordinance Review Subcommittee for coming up with a thorough, well-thought-out proposal to regulate medical marijuana dispensaries (see Page 5).
The restrictions are quite reasonable. The language is concise. The intent is admirable.
Best of all, it gives the township the type of control it needs without succumbing to the hysteria of folks who still worry that if we let those ‘jazz musicians? come to town, they’ll give ‘reefer? to our kiddies.
Bravo to the Ordinance Review Subcommittee for responding to the will of the voters and the needs of medical marijuana patients, instead of the intimidation and scare tactics of grandstanding politicians who wear tin stars on their chests.
If the village was smart, it would save itself a lot of time and effort by simply copying whatever the township adopts.
Why reinvent the wheel?
?????
While I’m doling out the kudos, I’d like to give a heap to the Oxford Village Council for rejecting proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance and village code that would have prohibited downtown merchants from using the sidewalks as a place to display and sell merchandise (see Page 4).
I wholeheartedly agree with Councilman Tom Benner that the proposal was anti-business in nature and an example of ‘big government? in action.
I believe if the village actually enforces the existing code ? which allows merchandise within three feet of buildings along Washington St. between Broadway and East streets ? things will be just fine.
Outdoor displays/sales have been allowed downtown for 41 years. Why ban them simply because of a few bad apples?
If there are business owners who refuse to comply with the code after being warned, cite them as many times as it takes for them to get the message.
Send the code enforcement officer over there every day or just have village Manager Joe Young stop by on one his umpteen daily trips to the bank and post office.
It’s up to every single business owner to know the village code and ordinances, and follow them to the letter.
It’s when we abdicate our personal responsibility and ignore our duties that government swoops in to take over like a vulture waiting for that last breath.
?????
Please allow me to thank Mark Young for his all his years of dedicated service on the Oxford DDA board as both a member and chairperson
Monday night was Young’s last DDA meeting as an appointed official. He decided it was time for a rest. I agree.
Young did a terrific job under some very difficult and stressful circumstances.
When everyone around him had their head in the clouds or was busy riding a wave of phony positivity, Young kept his eye on important issues like why the DDA’s financial records were such a mess and why he could never seem to get a straight answer about anything from the village administration.
While others were busy rubbing elbows and posing for photos, Young concerned himself with less sexy things like procedural issues, the accuracy of records and making sure the DDA was getting all of the revenue it was entitled to by law.
My many chats with Young over the years revealed him to be a man who was extremely frustrated by ‘The Matrix,? as he likes to call it, but who refused to stop asking questions and seeking answers.
At times, Young seemed tired, defeated and downright depressed, but he always wanted to do what was right, no matter what the personal toll.
I also like the fact that he was the only DDA board member with the courage to speak out publicly about how the school district’s idiotic $785,000 purchase of downtown’s Meriam building would result in the loss of property tax revenue.
His leadership of the DDA will be sorely missed by all of us who don’t believe that government’s dirty laundry should skip the washing machine and go straight to the dresser drawers.
?????
I tip my Tam o? Shanter to all the volunteers who worked at the NO HAZ Collection conducted Saturday at Oxford Middle School. My experience couldn’t have been more pleasant or more convenient.
With two broken computer monitors to dispose of, I handed a volunteer my voucher, drove around and another volunteer unloaded them from my trunk. I didn’t have to leave my car or do any heavy-lifting. What a pleasure.
?????
Okay, let’s give one more ‘attaboy? to the Oxford Village Police Department for busting the teens allegedly responsible for a string of break-ins last month (see Page 5).
I’m glad Acting Chief Mike Solwold called me to share the good news. It’s nice to have a police agency that works with the local media instead of trying to keep certain crimes from reaching the paper.
Reading about crimes, especially solved ones, helps taxpayers justify the tons of money that’s spent on law enforcement.
If I were running a local police agency and I had a couple of important millages coming up in the next election, you can bet I would be sharing things, not hiding them.

In last week’s column, I focused on what it would take to dissolve the Village of Oxford and why I’m in favor of it.
This week I wish to focus on the concept of ‘identity.?
Over in Clarkston, people are talking a lot about ‘identity? these days because the city recently got rid of its tiny police force and now, the municipality itself is the target of a dissolution campaign.
People in favor of keeping the city government argue that without it, Clarkston would lose its ‘identity? and be swallowed up by the evil Independence Township.
I’ve heard some people in Oxford Village employ the same logic as a reason for keeping the village government.
I believe that argument is poppycock.
If the village government disappeared tomorrow, the village would still be the village.
The downtown wouldn’t suddenly become a ghost town or get bulldozed to make way for a Wal-Mart.
The historic homes wouldn’t vanish into thin air or be turned into strip clubs.
The old tree-lined neighborhoods wouldn’t lose their warmth and charm.
People would still affectionately refer to the area as ‘the village.?
Amazingly enough, the little town of Lakeville (over in Addison Township) doesn’t have a separate government nor does it levy any taxes, yet everyone knows right where it is. It’s even shown on maps.
The unincorporated villages of Thomas (in northwestern Oxford) and Oakwood (on the Oxford/Brandon border) are the same way.
To me, the village is defined by the people who live and work here, the historic buildings and homes that give our community its true character, and the delightful mix of downtown shops and restaurants that draw folks to Oxford.
We can still have all that without a village government. We can still have all that and lower our tax bills by 7.7048 mills.
(That figure was derived by taking the village tax rate of 10.62 mills and subtracting the 2.9152 mills the township currently levies for police protection. That’s the only township tax that village residents currently do not pay, but would have to start if the village dissolved.)
I refuse to believe the price of having an ‘identity? is 10.62 mills to support an extra layer of government to oversee 1.4 square miles.
‘Identity? shouldn’t be defined by higher taxes, redundancy and inefficiency.

Have you ever watched a greedy child open Christmas presents? It’s not a pretty sight.
They rip open a package, take a brief look at their new toy, toss it aside, then head for the next gift.
When there are no more presents to open, the child, now surrounded by a sea of new toys, screams, ‘Is that all?? and proceeds to throw a fit.
Government often reminds me of that greedy child, who deserves to be put in the corner. It’s never satisfied with what it has. It always wants more, more, more.
More money. More land. More buildings. More projects.
Which brings me to my point this week ? I was very disappointed that the Oxford Township Board recently voted to authorize the Parks and Recreation Department to purchase another 7 acres of land on S. Coats Rd.
Granted, $212,000 for 7 acres complete with a house, three-car garage, barn, shed and small pond is one heck of a bargain, even when you add in the $23,284 in loan interest.
But I seem to be one of the last people on earth who still believes just because we can do a thing, doesn’t necessarily mean we should. My parents taught me this little thing called restraint.
As with any government purchase of land or buildings, the S. Coats Rd. property will be taken off the tax rolls.
That means an annual loss of approximately $2,100 in combined revenue for the township, library, fire department, police services, parks, schools and county.
All I hear lately is government officials whining and crying about how their tax revenues are decreasing as property values continue to decline.
Millage rates are worth less and less across the board, resulting in budget cuts, tax increases or both.
Given this, does it really seem like a good time for any government unit to buy more land so there’s less property to tax?
The more land government owns, the less there is to tax, the more they have to tax our properties to make up the difference. It’s a vicious cycle.
If you want to see an extreme case of how government ownership of land can erode a local tax base, look no further than Groveland Township.
According to Groveland Treasurer Dave Ax, ‘About 30 percent of our township of 36 square miles is owned by the government, which is state and county.?
And that government land is all park land such as the 7,817-acre Holly Recreation Area, managed by the state’s Department of Natural Resources, and the 361-acre Groveland Oaks County Park. ‘It definitely reduces (our tax base) and strains the fire and ambulances services that have to make runs into the parks,? Ax said.
Ax noted Groveland does receive ‘funds in lieu of taxes? from the state for its DNR-run property, but it’s only a ‘fraction of what we would be able to collect if the land was owned privately.?
Plus, these state funds are based on 2004 tax rates, something that was arbitrarily decided in Lansing. ‘The state picked the number and that’s all we can collect,? Ax said.
Having all this untaxable park land especially hurts considering Groveland was ‘hit with the largest tax reduction of any place in the county,? according to Ax.
‘We had a 21 percent taxable value reduction,? the treasurer said. ‘It was huge.?
The only property the Groveland government owns is the land on which its township hall and two fire stations sit, plus 190 acres it received from a legal battle.
‘We’re looking to develop (the 190 acres), so we can sell it to somebody that we can tax,? Ax noted.
But enough about Groveland. Back to Oxford Township.
I don’t believe the parks department needed to buy this 7 acres in order to finally stop renting office space from the village for $12,000 per year and establish its headquarters at Seymour Lake Park.
I think the department already had plenty of land and money in its $259,000 fund balance to move its maintenance operations elsewhere within Seymour Lake Park and still convert its existing maintenance building into new administrative offices as is now planned.
But that isn’t as sexy as buying more property with a house and barn on it. Where’s the fun if you don’t have a new present to open?
Oxford’s Parks and Recreation Department currently has 494 acres of park land. When it closes on the S. Coats Rd. property, it will have 501 acres plus a house.
Back in 2006, the department purchased 14 acres for $225,000 and added it to Seymour Lake Park.
It should be noted all this township park land does NOT include the 40.4 acres of village park land, the 4.9 miles of the Polly Ann Trail that runs through Oxford or the 425 acres of untaxable, state-owned land in the township.
Exactly, how much more park land do we need?
When is enough, enough?
At what point does a government department’s expansion go from simply trying to meet residents? needs to building an Empire so others can envy you?
I think these are fair questions every taxpayer should be asking, but probably won’t because our parks and rec. department is very popular and frequently used. But I don’t think popularity should prevent questions from being asked and opposing viewpoints from being expressed.
I know I’m not supposed to write things like this, express my opinion or ask these types of questions because it upsets the delicate egos of our Community Leaders.
I know I’m just supposed to keep my mouth shut, turn my brain off, plaster a stupid smile on face and go with the flow. After all, Oxford rocks.
But that’s really not me. I’m a contrarian by nature.
The economy’s still in the toilet. Lots of folks are still having trouble paying their bills. People are still losing their homes. So, forgive me if I get angry when a government agency decides to buy more land and expand the Empire’s boundaries.
I think it would be great if all of our local government leaders were required to spend at least one day volunteering at the Oxford/Orion FISH pantry, which provides basic groceries to those in need.
Maybe that would bring them back down to earth and they wouldn’t be in such a hurry to keep spending and buying.

Enough is enough.
Let’s stop wasting tax money.
Let’s stop wasting time.
The Oxford Village Council should definitely accept the township’s final settlement offer concerning the fire department lawsuit. See Page 1.
I truly believe it’s a good deal for both sides.
I truly believe it’s the best compromise we’re going to see.
First and foremost, as a village resident, I don’t want to end up paying annual usage charges for fire services on top of the 2.5 mills I already pay for them.
Accepting this settlement proposal would prevent that from happening.
We’re all township residents and we should all continue paying the same millage rate, which we all approved at the polls.
For the village government, the positives of accepting this offer are clear.
Council gets the old fire hall, the old township hall and all the parking that goes with it. The village would finally have complete control of the entire municipal complex, something council’s been striving for.
The parking lot is already heavily used by downtown businesses and is particularly vital to the southwest quadrant.
When the economy gets better, the village could use the old township hall or fire station to do something beneficial for the community like open a youth center.
Or maybe the village could sell or lease some property to a private enterprise.
There’s a ‘vision plan? floating around out there that shows the entire complex being turned into townhouses someday.
The township’s offer also gives the village a five-year contract for fire/EMS dispatch services. Village officials keep telling us how important it is to keep dispatch local, well, here’s your chance to seal the deal.
On top of all that, the settlement gives the cash-strapped village a $50,000-infusion from the township’s general fund.
To me, it would be absolutely insane for the village to turn down this offer.
I look at it this way. Let’s say council rejects it and pushes the township for a lump sum payment of $643,241, which represents the village’s equity in the fire department.
It sounds good, but then the township would be allowed to start assessing the village an annual usage charge in perpetuity.
The first 10 years alone could amount to approximately $1 million or more.
Does that sound like a good deal to you?
It doesn’t to me. The village should take the township’s offer and move on before we spend another $500,000 on an endless stream of attorney bills, motions and appeals.

I’m pleased to see Oxford Township has been taking a rational, logical approach to the issue of medical marijuana dispensaries, instead of just prohibiting them.
However, now it seems the fate of dispensaries is going to come down to whether the township board is willing to spend the tax dollars necessary to craft its own regulatory ordinance or take the cheap and lazy way out by just banning them. See story on Page 4.
Although I’m generally not a big fan of spending taxpayer money, in this case, I hope the township will make the wise investment to create its own ordinance.
Whether you like it or not, 63 percent of Michigan voters approved the legal use, possession and cultivation of medical marijuana in the November 2008 election.
I voted ‘yes? and would do so again.
And before someone starts screaming that the state vote wasn’t reflective of ‘Oxford’s community values,? let me point out that Oxford voters in 2008 approved legalizing medical marijuana by a margin of 6,386 to 3,753. That works out to 62.98 percent approval.
Whether you like it or not, there are people with serious health problems whose symptoms are greatly alleviated whenever they smoke or otherwise ingest medical marijuana.
I’m not going to deny them the help they need because some of us spent too much time believing everything the D.A.R.E. officers told us while riding around in their flashy cars or watching the 1936 propaganda film ‘Reefer Madness.?
Are there people out there who are abusing the state’s medial marijuana law?
I’m quite certain there are.
But I’m willing to bet the number of legitimate patients greatly outweighs the number of people who are taking advantage of the law to simply get high.
According to Gil Kerlikowske, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, ‘The abuse of prescription drugs is our nation’s fastest-growing problem.?
Yet, we’re not rushing to ban pharmacies, jail doctors or dump our Vicodin and Viagra down the toilet.
Why? Because we recognize that the vast majority of people are helped by prescription drugs and use them responsibly.
I believe the same is true of medical marijuana and its users, the majority of whom are seeking a form of relief, not recreation.
And before someone says, ‘The difference is prescription drugs are approved by the FDA, something medical marijuana is not,? let’s remember how many FDA-approved drugs have been yanked off the market because they turned out to be deadly or have severe side effects.
I’m all for allowing medical marijuana dispensaries in Oxford Township to help fill a few empty storefronts, generate tax revenue and genuinely help patients who require their services. But I believe these dispensaries should be strictly regulated ? just as pharmacies are by state governments ? given their potential for abuse.
To me, the Village of Dryden in Lapeer County did a bang-up job with their ordinance regulating dispensaries. I urge people to visit www.villageofdryden.com and read it for themselves.
Some of the things I liked about the ordinance include:
n Dispensaries must have permits approved and issued by the village council.
n There shall be no more than one dispensary for every 1,000 village residents.
n Set hours of operation.
n No one under the age of 18 is allowed on the premises of a dispensary unless they have a valid medical marijuana registry card and are accompanied by a parent or legal guardian.
Dryden’s ordinance is definitely a model to follow. I commend that village council.
As far as marijuana of any kind still being illegal according to federal law, I say to heck with the feds.
Medical marijuana is a classic example of a states? rights issue. As such, its legalization should be decided on a state-by-state basis, not at the federal level.
Michigan voters approved it and that’s good enough for me.
I would argue the federal law is not valid ? no matter what the senile Supreme Court says ? based on the doctrine of states? rights and the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. I’ll make my stand with Thomas Jefferson who in 1798 wrote the Kentucky Resolutions. Never has a more eloquent or concise statement in favor of states? rights been expressed:
‘Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force …?
I think Oxford Township’s on the right track when it comes to allowing and regulating medical marijuana dispensaries.
I hope officials will stay on that track and not get derailed by financial issues, or worse yet, the fear-mongering of self-righteous Moral Majoritarians and overzealous law enforcement folks.

I have to compliment the Oxford Village Council.
Last week’s public hearing concerning the setting of a millage rate for the 2010-11 fiscal year went very well.
The public was allowed ample opportunity to speak its mind. I was particularly impressed with resident Jan Drogosch who was both eloquent and feisty. She used to serve on council and I sincerely wish she’d run for office again.
It truly seemed as though most of the council really listened to what the residents had to say and took their message to heart.
What occurred at the village meeting was an example of a productive dialogue between taxpayers and officials ? something we don’t often see around here.
There was only one part of the hearing that really ticked me off. That was when Oxford Downtown Development Authority Director Madonna Van Fossen got up and started cheerleading for the village government and herself. Now, I know it’s a public forum and as such everyone has a right to speak, but Van Fossen’s cheerleading bothered me for a couple reasons.
First off, she is neither a resident nor a taxpayer of the Village of Oxford. She lives in Orion and is simply an employee here.
Her stake in this community is not a home or a business or even a rental property, it’s a paycheck and some benefits.
To me, a public hearing regarding the setting of a millage rate is supposed to be for the people who actually pay the taxes, not those who earn their living off of them.
Now, if DPW Superintendent Don Brantley or Police Chief Mike Neymanowski had spoken, I would not have minded a bit because both of them live in the village, own homes and pay taxes here. They have a real stake in this community beyond their jobs.
The part of Van Fossen’s speech that really bothered me was her talk about the sacrifices being made by village employees like herself.
‘The employees of the village ? the police chief, the DPW supervisor, myself, the clerk, the village manager ? have all agreed to take pay cuts,? Van Fossen said. ‘We have all agreed to pay more of our health insurance. I share the same sentiments you do. I live paycheck-to-paycheck and so do a lot of these people. So, we feel the pain. We’re all doing the best we can do.?
‘All of the employees of the village, myself included, are certainly out for your (residents) best interests as well,? Van Fossen continued. ‘I, too, am looking out for their best interests. I, too, work hard at my job. And although maybe I don’t pay as much as you do with your health insurance, the time and the effort that I’ll give is . . . I feel as though I do a darn good job. I feel as though the employees of this village do a darn good job. We are taking concessions and we are doing the best that we can.?
If she hadn’t kept including herself in all this, I probably wouldn’t be this upset.
It’s true Van Fossen is taking a $998 pay cut in her annual salary (bringing her down to a mere $48,901) and has agreed to pay a combined $430 more per year for her health insurance and retirement benefits.
But what many of you out there in Leader land don’t know is that back when the DDA was crafting its 2010-11 budget, Van Fossen was pushing hard for a 5 percent pay raise.
She requested a $2,500 ‘merit increase? and wanted to receive it as a single payout.
When I first heard about this, I was absolutely appalled. I even penned a column.
Here’s an excerpt from it:
‘What’s wrong with this picture?
Property values are declining.
Property tax revenues are decreasing.
Governments ? including Oxford township, village and school district ? are looking for ways to cut budgets to avoid deficits or draining their fund balances to zero.
All around us, government employees are being asked to take pay cuts and pay freezes or are being laid off.
Yet, the DDA director wants a bonus.
Again, what’s wrong with this picture??
Fortunately, the DDA budget committee had the good sense to put the kibosh on the requested pay hike.
When I heard her proposed bonus was no more, I scrapped my column and let it go.
But listening to Van Fossen’s speech about sacrifices last week produced so much bile in the back of my throat, I had to pen this column to set the record straight and vent.
To my knowledge, none of the other non-union employees in the village government asked for a raise except her. And the only reason she went along with a pay cut was because all of them were doing it.
Funny, she didn’t mention any of that in her speech. Guess it slipped her mind.
Then again, there’s no positive spin to the truth.
NOTE: I had a good time last week serving up meatballs at the Oxford United Methodist Church’s weekly free community meal.
The folks I served were all so grateful and appreciative that I must commend the church for creating this wonderful program and commend all the volunteers who put on this dinner every Wednesday from 5:30 to 6:30 p.m.
From the kitchen staff to my fellow servers to the cleanup crew, these are the type of volunteers that make a community great.
They’re not sitting around coming up with marketing slogans, T-shirt ideas and glossy ads to promote their cause. They’re simply rolling up their sleeves and feeding their fellow man ? that’s real community spirit.

Everywhere I look local governments are facing budget deficits and struggling with decreasing property tax revenues. Officials are desperately trying to figure out where and how to cut expenditures and in some cases, if a tax increase is warranted.
All this got me thinking about the Oxford Downtown Development Authority (DDA) and the way it’s funded.
Unlike other government entities that levy their own property taxes ? most of which are approved by voters ? the DDA’s budget is comprised solely of the money it skims from everybody else’s millages.
You see the DDA doesn’t have a millage of its own. It feeds off other taxes like a tapeworm frolicking in a field of intestines.
Even though it’s very dry and boring, allow me to explain. Since 1985, DDA has been funded by what’s called Tax Increment Financing (TIF).
Each year the TIF is determined by subtracting the ‘initial assessed value? ? the taxable value of the property within the DDA boundaries when the TIF Plan was established ? from the ‘current assessed value? ? the taxable value of the property for each subsequent year.
The amount by which the current assessed value exceeds the initial assessed value (or base value) represents what’s called the ‘captured value,? which fuels the annual operating budget for the DDA.
TIF revenues are calculated by multiplying the captured value by the millage rates of the taxing jurisdictions within the DDA district.
For downtown Oxford, this includes the operating millages for the township, village, township parks and recreation department, fire department and local public library, plus the millages to pay the fire and library bond debts.
The school district used to be part of the TIF collection, but it was allowed to opt out in 2000 because of Proposal A. The other entities are unfortunately not allowed to opt out unless the DDA were to expand its boundaries.
I’ve always had a problem with the way the DDA is funded because, in my opinion, it basically takes money away from other government entities ? money voters approved for specific services, not the DDA.
After the first year of a TIF Plan, all revenue increases based on rising taxable values within the district go to the DDA instead of the individual taxing jurisdictions. The amount of money each taxing jurisdiction receives from DDA properties is essentially frozen because it’s always based on taxable values from 1985 when the TIF Plan started.
To me, this represents a big loss to those entities.
For instance, because of the TIF capture, $47,807 that should have went to the Oxford Fire Department this year, instead went to the DDA.
As someone who’s voted for every single fire millage since I moved here in 2001, it bothers me that this money approved for the safeguarding of lives and property got sucked up by the DDA.
And it’s not just the fire department that gets shafted by this skimming. This year the Oxford Township Parks and Recreation Department lost $16,327 to the DDA, while the Oxford Public Library lost $26,738.
I’m quite confident Parks Director Ron Davis and Library Director Bryan Cloutier could have done a lot of good things with that money, but they’ll never get the chance because part of the funds voters approved for them went to the DDA ? an entity completely insulated from voters.
Thanks to the DDA capture, Oxford Township lost $18,167 for its general fund this year, while the village lost $193,524 from its operating tax for the 2009-10 fiscal year.
Then again, the village charges the DDA $85,000 for DPW services and $60,000 for police services, so it recoups the majority of its tax money.
Funny how that works out.
If there was no DDA, there would still be a downtown and the DPW and police would still be required to maintain and serve that area. But because there is a DDA, the village has a vehicle through which it can get most of its money back. Seems like a big shell game, doesn’t it?
Now, there is a pro-TIF argument that says the increased tax revenue in a DDA district should be captured by the DDA because without its actions and improvements that extra money wouldn’t be there in the first place. In other words, there’s a direct link between what the DDA does and increased property values in a downtown area.
That’s probably true in downtowns like Rochester and Royal Oak.
But in Oxford, I tend to think the increased tax revenues (back when times were good) derived from downtown properties had more to do with the highly-traveled M-24 corridor; the fact that the township’s residential areas were once growing by leaps and bounds; and the private real estate investors and business owners who saw the potential for profit because of those two things.
Based on what I’ve seen over the last 11 years, other than the parking lot improvements and the grants it’s given some businesses for new facades, signs and awnings, most of what’s happened downtown is not the result of DDA actions; it’s the result of market forces, the entrepreneurial spirit and individuals willing to take risks.
Anyway, the point I’m trying to make here is that I’d rather see the money the DDA siphons off everyone actually go to those entities as the voters intended.
That, in my mind, is preferable to service cuts and tax increases, which the extra money could somewhat lessen.

Back in the 1950s, when right-wingers wanted to silence, discredit or blacklist their opponents on the Left, all they had to do was scream ‘Communist!? and the shunning began.
Whether they were in reality Soviet agents or sympathizers mattered very little. Paint them Red and society will ostracize them.
Later on, left-wingers used the same tactic on the Right, but they substituted the word ‘racist.?
Someone’s opposed to affirmative action?
Call them a racist!
Someone’s criticizing a corrupt black political leader?
Call them a racist!
Someone believes welfare programs are wasteful, ineffective and unconstitutional?
Call them a racist!
It seems like these days if you want to discredit or dismiss someone or their opinions, all you have to do is use the N-word.
Yes folks, I’m talking about ‘Negative.?
Please kids, don’t repeat that word in school because you might be suspended or worse, sent to a Tony Robbins seminar.
The world, including Oxford, has become dominated by the Cult of Positivity with its mush-filled self-help books and slick motivational speakers hawking their snake oil.
Now, if someone wants to go through life ignoring reality and focusing only on the positives ? be they real or imaginary ? that’s fine with me.
We all have a right to live as we want, think as we want and do as we want. We are constrained only by the law, the rights of others and our own consciences.
But tolerance is not a virtue in the Cult of Positivity, which demands that ideas, opinions, information and even people perceived as ‘negative? be stamped out.
I was reading an article published in the Feb. 1, 2007 issue of Harper’s Magazine, in which author Barbara Ehrenreich penned the following line that caught my eye ? ‘Many champions of positivity urge one to ostracize negative people ? complainers and ‘victims? ? because they are ‘committed to lose.??
That article intrigued me because not only do I see this type of persecution happening here in Oxford on a daily basis, I’ve been a target of it. It doesn’t matter how much positive reporting you do on the community every week, criticize The Powers That Be and you’re a negative leper.
I started reading on-line passages from Ehrenreich’s latest book entitled ‘Bright-sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America.?
In the book, she wrote, ‘When gurus advise dropping ‘negative? people, they are also issuing a warning: smile and be agreeable, go with the flow ? or prepare to be ostracized.?
It’s insidious, but very true. And it doesn’t stop there.
‘It is not enough, though, to cull the negative people from one’s immediate circle of contacts; information about the larger human world must be carefully censored. All the motivators and gurus of positivity agree that it is a mistake to read newspapers or watch the news,? Ehrenreich wrote.
Ultimately, it seems the key to happiness, in the Cult of Positivity is to plaster a smile on your face at all times (even when you don’t mean it), get rid of people who don’t conform to your outlook on life and stay as uninformed as possible.
I found Ehrenreich’s words particularly insightful ? and chilling ? given what happened recently when DDA Executive Director Madonna Van Fossen decided to edit out an informational item from a DDA newsletter article because she perceived it as ‘negative.? The item referenced a proposed change in the collection of school property taxes and its potential effect on businesses.
(See last week’s story ‘Volunteer quits over censoring of DDA newsletter? at www.oxfordleader.com.)
‘The overall context of that article was, I thought, negative, and I had four other people read the article, and it had a negative undertone,? said Van Fossen when asked to explain her actions.
‘I want everything that comes out of this DDA office to be positive because there’s enough negative things out there that you report about, the newspapers report about, the television stations,? Van Fossen continued. ‘Our newsletter is our PR piece and it’s not a place to make judgments and/or comments about other (entities), for example, the school board and how they’re spending their money or not spending their money or what they’re doing with the taxes or what they’re not doing with the taxes.?
Call me crazy, but I ? and I think most people ? want the information they receive from their government to be truthful, accurate and informative above all.
That’s why we have silly things like the Freedom of Information Act and the Open Meetings Act. In both of these laws, there’s not a single, solitary word mandating that the information governments dispense to the public always be positive. Why? Because we’re not all 3-year-olds looking to hitch unicorn rides through rainbows.
Sometimes news is good. Sometimes news is bad. Life is filled with both.
It’s an inconvenient thing called reality.
I consider myself to be a rational realist, not a pessimist or an optimist. I choose to see things as they are and ask lots of questions ? no illusions, no rose-colored glasses.
When I don’t like something or someone, I bluntly say it. Life’s too short to be a phony.
Contrary to what some believe, I view the glass as half-full, but I want to know who’s been drinking out of it, what’s in the glass and do I have to pay for the whole thing?
There’s nothing wrong with naming the dead elephants lying in the middle of the room and showing them to the public.
I don’t believe, as some people do, in just ignoring the stench of their giant rotting carcasses while telling people, ‘They’re so cute when they’re sleeping.?

I really didn’t want to write this column.
In fact, I put off writing it for three days.
I wanted to write about other things, more important things.
But the more I read and re-read Don Sherman’s letter to the editor (see left), the more I felt I had to respond to the inaccuracies and petty remarks penned by this member of both the Oxford Downtown Development Authority and Chamber of Commerce boards.
Sherman’s letter is a response to a column I wrote back in the Jan. 20 issue. It was entitled ‘Give Williams a chance? and you can read it for yourself at www.oxfordleader.com.
I apologize in advance if you find this column to be boring or irrelevant, but much like taking out the garbage, some things in life just have to be done. Here goes:
Response #1 ? In Sherman’s opening paragraph, he claims I attempt to paint the Chamber of Commerce and DDA as ‘in it for themselves? ? his quote marks, not mine.
Nowhere in that column did this quoted phrase appear. I did write, ‘Sometimes it seems like the only reason the Chamber and DDA exist is to pad resumes and keep a handful of people employed.?
I am well aware that both boards are staffed by volunteers. I believe some of them are there to truly help the business community and some are there simply to make themselves look good and add organizations to their LinkedIn.com webpage.
And yes, these two groups employ three people, who altogether earn about $100,000 plus benefits, so it’s not all volunteer-based.
Sherman then states that I wrote that Chamber and DDA members ‘do volunteer work to help ‘make money and live a certain lifestyle.??
Again, that’s not what I wrote.
The ‘make money and live a certain lifestyle? quote was part of something Guy Williams, of Community Marketing Associates, said during his original presentation to DDA members.
Allow me to put it in context by quoting the following from my Jan. 20 column:
. . . I also liked the fact that, unlike many government officials, Williams understands the real motivation behind the concept of entrepreneurship.
‘I don’t know anybody who went into business, so they can help the community,? Williams said. ‘You own a business because you want to make money and live a certain lifestyle.?
Don’t get me wrong, it’s great that so many of our local businesses are always willing to donate to a variety of causes.
But all of us must remember, businesses are not nonprofit groups operating out of the goodness of their hearts nor are they cash cows to be milked whenever government says it needs more.
The Number One goal of any business is to make a profit because without that, there is no business. It would be nice to have someone who understands that working to promote our businesses . . .
I have always been and always will be a staunch defender and promoter of local businesses? interests.
Response #2 ? In his letter, Sherman attempts to malign me for not attending the Main Street pep rally in Pontiac last week.
First of all, The Oxford Leader was the very first media outlet to report that Oxford once again received national accreditation for its Main Street program. I wrote a prominent Page 3 story on it for the Jan. 27 issue.
Through e-mails (which I have copies), I informed Sherman that I would attempt to make it down to Pontiac, but I am very busy working on both the weekly issue and the upcoming Progress 2010 edition. I also told him my reporter was on vacation.
When he wrote to me that the event was a three-hour time commitment, I wrote him, ‘There’s no way I can spend that much of my day on a single story, especially one that’s already been covered and written about. We’ll do some kind of follow-up on the event, but we won’t be able to make it there.?
Sherman’s response to me in a Feb. 15 e-mail ? ‘Thank you for the update on Drew and your story regarding the accreditation. We appreciate the coverage of the important story . . . If the time commitment is more than you can afford with your workload, I completely understand.?
I was true to my word and wrote a front-page story on the event for this week’s issue and put it in our What’s the Biz section.
Sherman, however, demonstrated exactly what kind of a man he is by publicly criticizing me for being absent at the pep rally, while privately telling me ‘I completely understand? why.
Prior to this, I witnessed Sherman’s true character a few weeks back when he walked up to me at my desk, shook my hand and told me he’s looking forward to building a good working relationship with me. This took place just after he’d been bad-mouthing me behind my back in a meeting.
To paraphrase rapper Eminem, ‘Will the real Don Sherman please stand up??
As for Sherman’s talk of me being too busy to cover a positive community event because I’m writing ‘bought and paid for business profiles,? allow me to explain.
Penning stories for our Progress edition is a part of my job that happens once a year. The deal is businesses that buy an ad in the March section get a free story written about them. So basically, on top of regular weekly workload, I have to do interviews, write stories and take photos for an additional 20-25 articles. The Leader, like many other newspapers, has been doing Progress editions for over 40 years.
Response #3 ? With regard to the Guy Williams presentation, I urge people to read my Page 3 story on his marketing plan in our Jan. 20 edition.
I was directed by Assistant Publisher Don Rush to cover this meeting and do a write-up for the paper.
Admittedly, I was not at all thrilled about the prospect of attending an 8 a.m. meeting to listen to some PR/marketing guy drone on about his plan. As a rule, I generally detest PR/marketing folks and rank them somewhere between politicians, lawyers and insurance salesmen.
But after listening to his presentation, much to my surprise, I actually liked what he had to say and thought his plan was a good one. I decided to go one step further than just doing an article and write a column.
My column is a strict expression of my opinion. No one tells what to write or what positions to take. I’m not going to change who I am, what I believe in or how I express myself to suit anyone’s tastes. I’m passionate about what’s right and what’s wrong ? and if I think you’re wrong, I’m going to call you on it. If I don’t believe it, I don’t write it. This column is me.
If you don’t like me, don’t read me. When you start adjusting yourself to appease your critics, you’re no longer a man, you’re a passionless hack.
And FYI ? I do not believe government and the ‘community? are one in the same, i.e. if you criticize the government, you’re hurting the community. To me, community is more than just government, it’s churches, service clubs, charities, schools, businesses and neighbors ? all the things you find in this newspaper every week.
Sometimes the best thing you can do for the community is point out the corruption, incompetence, lies, ineffectiveness, arrogance and wastefulness that often is government.
I opined about Williams because he has good ideas. And I didn’t say we absolutely must contract with him. I merely stated that I believe business owners should take the time to listen to him.
My exact words were ? ‘I would ask business owners within the DDA district to attend Williams? Jan 27 meeting, listen to what he has to say and keep an open mind. Business owners should attend this meeting, not because ? cue the violins ? it’s good for the community, but because it could be good for them. There’s nothing wrong with a little self-interest.?
Sherman’s insinuation that the reason I endorsed Williams is because our newspaper stands to profit is patently false. Yes, it’s true that Williams has bought a few ads with us and, if hired, would use our newspaper in his advertising plans because we’re a local publication.
He made that very clear in his meeting, when he said, ‘Every time we spent money advertising (in the past), I’d start with the local paper.?
You can’t have a local advertising plan to promote local businesses and community events without using the local paper. It’s common sense. Even the DDA knows that because it has repeatedly advertised with us.
At no point did Williams say the entire $120,000 advertising budget he proposed would all be spent with the Leader. In fact, he indicated that his advertising approach involved using newspapers, radio, television and internet.
Fact is, the vast majority of that proposed $120,000 advertising budget would most likely be spent on media outlets outside this community, whose advertising rates are much, much more expensive than the Leader’s.
I have absolutely nothing to do with the advertising side of this business. I don’t sell ads. I don’t design them. I don’t earn any commissions.
My job is editorial content, plain and simple.

The lawsuit against Oxford Schools (see Page 1) is a prime example of what’s wrong with our legal system.
Our courts are plagued by greedy lawyers who mask their unquenchable lust for cash by portraying themselves as crusaders for victims? rights and champions of the Little Guy.
Call me crazy, but the late William Keely and his widow, Margaret, are the only ones who could bear any legal responsibility for what allegedly happened to the OHS student who filed the lawsuit.
The school district is not legally, financially or even morally responsible in this case. Believe me, if I for a moment thought the district was culpable in any way, shape or form, I would have hammered school officials in this column or an editorial a long time ago.
Allow me to explain why I don’t think the district is liable.
The alleged crimes did not take place on school grounds, but inside a private home in Brandon Township.
The crimes were allegedly perpetrated not by the teacher during the performance of her job, but by her spouse. The victim wasn’t even one of Margaret Keely’s students. They simply met at school, a place where lots of folks meet on a daily basis.
When Margaret Keely was hired by the district in 1984, her husband was not a convicted sex offender. He didn’t earn that dubious distinction until 2002 (more on that later).
And even when he was convicted, the school district had no legal grounds to fire or scrutinize Margaret Keely for something her husband did. You can’t punish employees for the actions of their spouses or any other family members. To do so would be discrimination and you definitely don’t want to face a lawsuit for that.
To expect the school district to be aware and responsible for what all of their teachers and respective spouses do in their free time off school grounds is not only unreasonable and impossible, it’s insane. You’re basically saying the district should be all-knowing and all-powerful, which, contrary to what some believe, is not the case.
The bottom-line here is the school district was named in the lawsuit not because it’s actually responsible for anything in this sad situation, but because it’s the one with the deepest pockets. It’s a simple equation ? Government Entity plus Lawsuit equals Big Pay Day.
I’m not at all surprised Oxford Schools is being sued. It’s been my experience that many (not all) lawyers care more about getting paid than they do trivial things like principles, ethics or actual liability. They’ll sue anybody if there’s the potential for gold at the end of the litigation rainbow.
The district is covered by insurance for this type of lawsuit and I’m willing to bet the insurance company will eventually settle the case rather than fight it.
Insurance companies are ruled by numbers, not notions of right and wrong. Fact is, it’s usually cheaper to settle than fight ? another problem with our legal system.
If the OHS student and her attorney want to go after William Keely’s estate and his widow, that’s fine with me. Good luck. I couldn’t care less if Margaret Keely ends up destitute.
But please leave the school district out of it.
Suing the district is about greed, not justice.
Now on to my next Keely-related issue.
I find it ironic ? and somewhat appalling ? that Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Edward Sosnick will be the guest speaker at the Oxford-Addison Youth Assistance dinner Feb. 25. You see, in my opinion, Sosnick is partly responsible for what allegedly transpired between William Keely and the victim.
In April 2001, a jury convicted Keely of four counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct involving his 14-year-old foster daughter, who reported having sexual intercourse with him on more than one occasion. His prison sentence ranged from a minimum of 6? years to a maximum of 20 years.
But Sosnick later set aside the jury’s guilty verdict and ordered a new trial. In his opinion, the judge wrote that the prosecutor’s use (during closing arguments) of Margaret Keely’s Fifth Amendment right to remain silent as evidence of her husband’s guilt raised ‘the possibility that the jury convicted the defendant not based on the evidence against him, but based on his wife’s exercise of her constitutional right.?
According to sheriff’s Deputy Ron Crichton, who worked on that case, the victim stated that Margaret Keely walked in on her and William during a sexual encounter.
The prosecutor didn’t want to put the victim through the mental agony and emotional strain of another trial, so a deal was struck in 2002 in which Keely pleaded no contest to four counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct.
For that, he served 10 months of a one-year sentence in county jail and was put on probation for two years.
After Keely was arrested in 2008, Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard said the case was a prime example of how the system ‘let down the victims and let down their community as a whole.?
‘Sex offenders are typically prolific. They typically repeat their offending and we have another victim,? said Bouchard at the time. ‘Clearly, this person (Keely) shouldn’t be on the streets. (He) shouldn’t be in a position to have another victim in the future.?
Had Sosnick not interfered and the jury’s verdict been allowed to stand, Keely would have most likely still been in prison in 2008, unable to allegedly molest the OHS student now suing the district.
So, pardon me if I start choking at the thought of Sosnick being the guest speaker at a function celebrating the good works of a terrific local group that does so much to protect our youth and keep them on the straight and narrow.
I’m by no means slamming Youth Assistance.
That group is aces in my opinion. It’s their choice of speaker that leaves a lot to be desired.

I must say I was very impressed with the substance of the community marketing plan presented by Guy R. Williams.
You can read all about it on Page 3.
I not only liked his plan of action, I agreed with the reasoning behind it.
Perhaps, if given a chance, he can succeed where the Downtown Development Authority and Chamber of Commerce have so often failed and left local businesses feeling frustrated.
I truly believe a grassroots marketing effort by the businesses themselves holds a lot of promise.
Government-led programs take too long, get bogged down by petty politics and endless committees, and carry a certain stigma.
Although the Chamber of Commerce is not a government entity, it certainly behaves like one and believe me, that’s not a good thing.
Sometimes it seems like the only reason the DDA and Chamber exist is to pad resumes and keep a handful of people employed.
Maybe hiring an outside professional can get businesses a bigger bang for their buck and some much-needed results.
I also liked the fact that, unlike many government officials, Williams? understands the real motivation behind the concept of entrepreneurship.
‘I don’t know anybody who went into business, so they can help the community,? he said. ‘You own a business because you want to make money and live a certain lifestyle.?
Don’t get me wrong, it’s great that so many of our local businesses are always willing to donate to a variety of causes.
But all of us must remember, businesses are not nonprofit groups operating out of the goodness of their hearts nor are they cash cows to be milked whenever government says it needs more.
The Number One goal of any business is to make a profit because without that, there is no business. It would be nice to have someone who understands that working to promote our businesses.
I would ask business owners within the DDA district to attend Williams? Jan. 27 meeting, listen to what he has to say and keep an open mind.
Businesses owners should attend this meeting, not because ? cue the violins ? it’s good for the community, but because it could be good for them. There’s nothing wrong with a little self-interest.

Most people probably don’t realize it anymore but documents like the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written to restrain government power and protect citizens from its overbearing reach.
But somewhere along the way, we stopped paying attention to those sacred pieces of parchment.
Maybe we need something stronger to restrain government at all levels. Maybe we need to get in touch with our inner Moses and issue a set of commandments to keep our officials in check.
Mine would go something like this:
I. Thou shalt not covet thy citizens earnings. ? Whenever I hear a government official utter the words ‘I have an idea . . .,? I get extremely nervous because nine times out of 10 their ideas end up costing the taxpayers more money. Folks in government need to stop casting their covetous eyes on our paychecks to finance their big dreams. And yes, that includes grant money from higher levels of government because guess what? It’s still tax money!
II. Remember private property and keep it Holy. ? True freedom hinges on the ability of citizens to privately own property and do with it what they will. How can a man truly be free if his castle and lands are constantly threatened by things like eminent domain, overzealous zoning ordinances and rising property taxes that basically make government a landlord that charges us all rent?
III. Honor thy entrepreneurs. ? People who start businesses, particularly small ones, are the backbone of this country and needed to be treated with more respect. In other words, stop overtaxing and overregulating them to the point where they no longer wish to take risks.
IV. Not every problem requires a new law or ordinance. ? Laws and ordinances lose their meaning when there are too many of them. Most problems can be solved without creating more rules.
V. Speak honestly and plainly with the public. ? We live in a world where it seems like everybody speaks their own little language full of technical jargon, buzzwords and insider terms. Government officials are the worst culprits when it comes to this.
VI. Just because government can do a thing doesn’t mean it should.
VII. If at first the millage proposal doesn’t succeed, don’t keep cramming it down voters? throats.
You have now received thy laws.
Go forth and sin no more all ye who gorge themselves at the public trough.

Taxes are a lot like poison.
In small doses, they can be tolerated.
But in large amounts, they’re lethal.
Case in point, Oxford Community Schools is considering shifting its tax collection from the current 50/50 split between the summer and winter bills to a 100 percent bite in the summer, possibly starting in 2011.
Granted, the schools aren’t asking for more money. They just want to collect all of it at once to improve their cash flow situation and prevent them from having to borrow money and pay interest while waiting for their state payments.
No decisions have been made by the school board at this point, but I must say I’m not a fan of this idea because of what it will do to the poor folks who pay non-homestead property taxes.
For those of you who don’t know, non-homestead taxes are levied against businesses, industrial properties, rental properties, second homes, etc.
Currently, the district levies an operating tax of 17.9946 mills against non-homestead properties.
Property owners pay 50 percent of this millage on their summer tax bill from Oxford and Addison townships and the other half on their winter bill.
Even under the existing setup, they’re still paying 8.9973 mills twice a year, which is by no means a pittance.
But if the district has its way, non-homestead property owners would pay the ‘full monty? on their summer tax bill.
For many of the struggling businesses in our community ? particularly all those small enterprises owned by families, couples and individuals ? this would impose a heavy, if not impossible, burden.
Add to that, the district also proposed collecting the full 7-mill bond debt tax during the summer, instead of the current 50/50 split between summer and winter.
So, basically the district is thinking of increasing non-homestead taxpayers? summer bill by 12.4973 mills, making them pay a grand total of 24.9946 mills to the schools all at once.
That’s a huge hit on a single bill.
It’s also a recipe for disaster for every small business in this community.
And we wonder why it’s so hard for the mom-and-pop shops to make it.
The school’s proposal is particularly devastating for businesses in Oxford Village that already get socked with a separate summer tax bill of 10.12 mills to support that municipality.
And let’s not forget the other 15.1434 mills in summer taxes for the Oakland Intermediate School District, Oakland Community College, county operations and the state education tax.
Include all those taxes and if the school district starts collecting 100 percent in the summer, the bills sent out in July to non-homestead property owners in Oxford Township will total 40.1380 mills. And for those who own non-homestead property in Oxford Village, it will be 50.2580 mills.
Who in their right mind thinks those amounts are reasonable, manageable or attractive to potential new businesses?
Both the Downtown Development Authority and Chamber of Commerce should be voicing their strong opposition to this idea. It’s time for these organizations to stop being cheerleaders and start being true advocates for businesses.
The township board and village council should also be chiming in, instead of sitting on their hands, afraid to offend.
Schools have to stop living in a bubble and thinking only of their needs. Schools would do well to remember the world does not revolve around them and they’re not the only units of government that saddle us with taxes.
The district is considering a 100 percent tax collection because of its ‘cash flow.? Well, what about the ‘cash flow? of businesses and other non-homesteaders who already struggle to pay their nearly 25 mills to the schools on two tax bills sent five months apart? The school board should consider that.
Times are tough all over, not just for the schools.

I wish to respond to Chris Glass? letter to the editor regarding last week’s column about my support for dissolving the Michigan State Senate.
First of all, it is absolutely false that changing to a unicameral legislature would require a state constitutional convention.. All that is required is for state residents to vote on a constitutional amendment regarding the issue of eliminating Michigan’s 38 senators.
In 2006, a grassroots group based in Hastings, Michigan launched an unsuccessful petition drive to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot that, if approved, would have changed the state’s legislature from bicameral to unicameral.
I wrote a column back then supporting the idea.
Ultimately, the effort failed because the group didn’t collect enough signatures to place it on the ballot, not because there needed to be a constitutional convention.
As a historical note, when Nebraska converted to a unicameral legislature in 1937, it did so following a vote of the people in 1936.
Secondly, far from taking ‘cheap shots? at state Rep. Jim Marleau (R-Lake Orion), I was actually trying to offer him a good campaign issue that would separate him from other candidates.
How often have you heard of a politician running for office so he can divest himself of power or put himself out of a job? Such a campaign would not only be unique, it would be refreshing. Imagine someone running for office who’s not concerned with their own job security or advancing their career. Elected office should not be a career.
Contrary to what Mr. Glass? asserts, the current bicameral legislature does not offer any sort of a guarantee whatsoever that there will definitely be checks and balances.
There’s nothing written in stone that says the Republicans will always control one chamber and the Democrats the other one. One party could easily gain a majority in each and take control of both. In fact, single-party rule is the norm.
Right now, there’s one-party rule of both legislative chambers in 41 states. As of the November 2008 election, the Democrats control both legislative chambers in 27 states and the GOP controls both in 14 states.
Prior to the Democrats taking control of the Michigan House in 2006, the GOP controlled both chambers for eight straight years.
Without a second chamber, the checks and balances upon a unicameral legislature would be maintained in the usual ways such as through the state Supreme Court and governor ruling on and vetoing measures deemed improper.
With their right to vote and petition, the people would also continue to serve as a check upon the possible abuse of power by elected officials.
Yes, Mr. Glass is correct that the current GOP-controlled state Senate has stopped the Democratic-controlled House on a number of issues, but I’m not looking at this through the narrow vision of partisan-colored glasses, which says I should support a system because it currently benefits my party.
I frankly don’t care about political parties anymore.
Just as when children grow up they stop believing in monsters and fairies, intelligent adults should follow suit as they grow older and stop believing in Republicans and Democrats.
To me, there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the two major parties. Both want and give us more and more government, they just differ on the degree, the cost and the rhetoric.
My sole interest is dramatically reducing the size and scope of government, period. Government is the problem, the virulent disease, the ravenous beast that must be slain.
My support for a unicameral legislature is a constructive idea in that I truly believe less government ultimately helps lead to economic success.
Plus, the last time I checked, Michigan needed more ways to cut spending without cutting essential services, so I would argue eliminating an entire layer of useless government is a ‘real idea? to help turn this state around.
Why not get rid of some legislators ? the alleged people who do nothing but create more laws, approve more taxes, spend more money and provide all-too-willing hosts for parasitic lobbyists.
As it is, we have too many lawmakers in this state.
Michigan has 148 state lawmakers to govern about 10 million people, while California has 120 state legislators for a population of about 38 million. Michigan also has the second-highest paid state legislators in the nation.
I think our 110-member House is more than enough legislature for the Wolverine state. I would even be in favor of eliminating some representatives in that chamber as well.
I do agree with Mr. Glass that making the legislature part-time is a wise idea.
A part-time unicameral legislature would save us a ton of money ? even more than just firing the senate.
I thank Mr. Glass for writing the newspaper and appreciate his participation in the free exchange of ideas ? one of the things that makes this nation the greatest on earth.
Note: I wish to thank the Rotary Club of Oxford for inviting me to be its guest speaker last week. I very much enjoyed the experience and was extremely flattered by all the compliments I received from the audience.
The Rotarians are certainly gracious hosts and I encourage others with something to say to contact the club about speaking. The guy in charge of arranging speakers is Joe Bullen and his phone number is (248) 628-2244.

You know an election year is coming up when a politician stops you after a Christmas tree lighting ceremony to schedule some time to talk.
That’s exactly what state Rep. Jim Marleau (R-Lake Orion) did with me Friday night following Oxford’s tree lighting in Centennial Park.
Yes folks, it’s time to play musical chairs as many politicians in Lansing set their sights on new offices because they can’t run for their current positions due to term limits.
State Sen. Mike Bishop (R-Rochester) can’t run for his seat again, so he’s running for state Attorney General.
And Marleau can no longer run for his seat again, so he’s hoping to switch legislative chambers and slide into Bishop’s senate seat.
How ironic. The well-intentioned idea behind term limits was to give voters new faces with fresh ideas and get rid of entrenched politicians who are more interested in building careers than serving the people.
Instead, term limits are giving us the same old faces, they just trade jobs every few years.
Anyway, my advice to Marleau is if he really wants to set himself apart, if he really wants to be bold, if he really wants to shake things up in the ‘Snake Pit of the Damned? that is Lansing, then he’ll campaign to put himself out of work as a senator.
It’s high time we dissolved the Michigan State Senate and got rid of the 38 senators along with their bloated salaries, undeserved benefits, $12,000 expense accounts, sycophantic staffs and God only knows what else.
Wouldn’t it be great to see politicians getting ‘down-sized? as opposed to factory workers?
Unicameral legislature is the way to go, baby!
In case you missed that day in Civics Class, unicameral means having or consisting of a single legislative chamber. Nebraska has been governed by a unicameral legislature since 1937. It’s the only state in the union that doesn’t have a bicameral (two chambers) legislature.
At the federal level, having a bicameral legislature such as Congress makes sense.
Representation in the U.S. House is based strictly on population whereas the U.S. Senate gives every state two representatives regardless of their size.
The Founding Fathers created a bicameral legislature as a compromise to balance and protect the interests of both large and small states. But here in Michigan, both House and Senate seats are based solely on population.
There’s really no point giving each district dual legislative representation. It’s essentially a duplication of services ? paying two people to shaft us, when one will do.
Our 110-member state House could help run this state just fine on its own. Or let’s put it this way, it couldn’t possibly do any worse. No, that’s not a challenge.
Consider this: each senator earns an annual salary of $79,650. Cutting all 38 of these hacks would save the state $3.03 million each year. Throw in their expense accounts and that saves another $456,000 annually. Cut all the pensions, medical benefits and staffs, and you start getting into some real money.
Which sounds like a better way for the state to start saving money ? cutting school funding or putting 38 defective politicians out of work?
Granted, it won’t solve Michigan’s financial woes, but in times like these, every penny counts and getting rid of these chumps would be a good start.

It’s been my experience that government folks are generally an unimaginative bunch who only know one way to increase revenue ? raise taxes.
Got a deficit? Raise taxes!
Want to fund that great new program?
Raise taxes!
Salary and kickbacks not enough to afford that vacation home in Tahiti?
Raise taxes, then salaries!
That’s why I was absolutely stunned when I received a press release from the Road Commission for Oakland County outlining an infrastructure funding proposal that doesn’t involve raising taxes at all.
I read it, fainted, then read it again.
The idea uses a combination of private investment as a funding source and the potential for profit as an incentive. Imagine that, in this era of Obamunism run amok, government’s proposing a market-based way to fund infrastructure improvements.
It’s called the Private Investment Infrastructure Funding (PIIF) option and it would bring a ‘business model? approach to infrastructure funding. The concept originated with the Oakland County Business Roundtable.
The idea is spelled out in state House Bill 5461 introduced in September. If approved, it would basically allow private investors to fund public infrastructure enhancements while potentially reaping a positive return on their investments.
The result ? things get done without increasing the tax burden on citizens. Roads, drainage, sewers, mass transit, etc. could all be funded this way. I feel giddy!
Take that Karl Marx! Capitalism’s making a comeback!
PIIF offers an alternative to those traditional infrastructure funding sources such as property taxes and municipal bonds, while providing an incentive for the private sector to invest in public infrastructure.
A system would be created to capture a portion of the property tax growth for the specific area that benefits from the infrastructure enhancement. That revenue would, in turn, be used to repay the private investors who fronted the money for the improvement.
A set rate of return based on estimated property tax growth over the repayment period would be negotiated between the investor and local government entities involved.
‘All the risk would be carried by the investor, who would only see a positive return on the investment if the property tax revenues increase as projected,? the press release stated.
Rather than rely on the coercive power of taxation under which people have no choice but to pay and pay, government would instead employ the unbridled power of the Free Market under which investors voluntarily pay now in the hopes of receiving a profit later.
I absolutely love this idea. In fact, it’s so good that I want to marry it and have a family of little ideas, so we can all live in a house on a privately-funded road.
I sincerely hope the state Legislature will pass this ingenious PIIF bill and our failed governor will finally do something right for a change and sign it.

Prior to leaving for deer camp, I wrote an article in the Nov. 18 edition about Republican Congressman Mike Rogers? visit to the Bear Paw Cafe in Lakeville.
The majority of the spirited discussion was focused on the socialist health care bill recently approved by the Democratic-controlled House.
However, Rogers also said a few words about this country’s debt to foreign nations that I thought were relevant given our current love affair with all things Chinese and our push for students to learn that language and culture.
Personally, I believe China is an enemy politically, economically, militarily and morally.
To embrace this dangerous nation and its totalitarian government is to embrace Evil itself.
That being said, one of things that most concerns me is how much of our national debt is owned by China (approximately $800 billion) and how it will use this to control and manipulate the land of the free.
‘If we don’t think foreign nations will use holding a debt to implement their policy, we are fooling ourselves,? Rogers told the crowd at the Bear Paw Cafe.
The congressman then plucked a page from the history books and gave a perfect example of one nation using debt to control another nation’s actions.
During the Suez Crisis of 1956-57, the United States wrongfully put financial pressure on Great Britain to end its military campaign against Egypt, following the Middle Eastern nation’s decision to seize and nationalize the Suez Canal.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower ordered his treasury secretary to prepare to sell part of America’s Sterling Bond holdings, which the U.S. held in part to aid postwar Britain’s economy and as partial payment of the island nation’s enormous World War II debt.
If the U.S. had sold this debt, the resulting devaluation of the British pound would have meant that within weeks, the island nation would have been unable to import the food and energy supplies needed to sustain its population.
In the face of Ike’s bullying, Britain announced a cease-fire, withdrew its troops and Egypt got to keep the canal that it basically stole.
‘We have put China in the same position to do that to us,? Rogers said.
The congressman noted that when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited China earlier this year, she never uttered a word about that nation’s contemptible human rights record.
‘We’ve never, ever had anyone go to China without kicking them on human rights,? Rogers said. ‘This is the first time we haven’t done it. Why? Because we owe them so much money.?
While our corporations are scrambling to do more and more business with China and our students are cramming their brains with Mandarin characters, the gang in Beijing is methodically positioning itself to become our masters.
At least our children and grandchildren will be able to understand the Chinese when they start barking orders.

We’ve got a little traffic situation brewing in downtown Oxford and the village needs to address it.
Thanks to the popularity of all the restaurants in the southwest quadrant ? Vic’s 24th Street Sports Tavern, Casa Real and the Ox Bar & Grill ? the southwest parking lot is overflowing, particularly on Friday and Saturday nights.
Don’t get me wrong. This is a great problem to have.
I’m glad these eateries are doing so well and attracting so many people to the downtown area. However, it’s leading to a very crowded and very dangerous Dennison Street.
It seems when customers can’t find a spot in the municipal lot or among the designated spaces along Hudson Street, they’re parking on Dennison Street, leaving the portion between M-24 and Hudson Street literally jammed with vehicles on both sides.
Trying to drive down Dennison has become extremely treacherous at certain times, particularly when there’s a vehicle headed your way from the opposite direction.
There’s no room to maneuver. Unless you back up (not a good idea) or turn in to somebody’s driveway, there’s simply no where to go but up.
Factor in traffic turning on to Dennison from Hovey and Hudson streets and you’ve got a really nasty little area there with the potential for vehicles crashing into each other or pedestrians.
I’d like to see the village make either the north or south side of Dennison, between M-24 and Hudson, a no parking zone between certain hours.
Maybe between 6 p.m. and 2 a.m.
I’d also like to see the Downtown Development Authority put up some signs directing people to park in other areas such as the northwest parking lot.
At night, the northwest quadrant’s practically empty due to the nature of the businesses there.
We paid a lot of money to expand and resurface the northwest lot. Let’s use it before somebody gets hurt.
Special Note: I very much enjoyed the performances of the varsity, concert and symphonic bands Monday evening. I was particulary proud of my daughter, Larissa, who masterfully performed two solos on the bass clarinet. Excellent work.

I think the state laws governing Schools of Choice and property taxes need to be tweaked a bit.
Right now, if parents decide to enroll their child in a school district other than the one in which they live, they don’t have to pay any local taxes to the district that teaches their kid.
Granted, the school district receives additional state funding for each new pupil it enrolls and that extra money goes toward operational spending.
And yes, every property owner in the state, regardless of school district, pays the 6-mill State Education Tax.
However, the parents of Schools of Choice students don’t pay for things like local bond debts and sinking funds.
Sure, they pay those local taxes to the school district in which their home is located, but not to the district that educates their children on a daily basis.
This is significant to me, and should be significant to you gentle reader, because right now a total of 316 Schools of Choice students are enrolled in Oxford Community Schools. Of that total, 172 students were added just this year.
Should the district’s two bond proposals be approved next week, none of the parents of these 316 students will pay one thin dime toward retiring that new debt.
They won’t pay to repair, replace and upgrade existing facilities and infrastructure. They won’t pay to add new classrooms and athletic facilities. They won’t pay for new computers and software.
As it is, they already don’t pay any of the district’s existing bond debt.
I don’t care what anybody says, that’s not fair and it’s not right. It’s especially not fair when people live in a school district with a low debt millage and send their kids to a district with a higher debt tax.
Somebody in Lansing ? the only place this can be fixed ? needs to change the laws so that if you decide to send your child to another school district, you have to pay that district’s taxes instead of the taxes for the district you live in.
I know it would be complicated and cumbersome to implement such a thing, but not impossible. I can hear municipal treasurers all over Michigan waking up at their desks and cursing my name.
Over the years, I’ve found the one thing ? perhaps the only thing ? that government excels at is finding new and creative ways to extract money from people.
If anybody can figure out how to make this work, it’s government. When it comes to taking our money, government is a genius.

Long before government decided to take it upon itself to confiscate tax dollars to supposedly ‘help? people in need, society had a social safety net in place.
That net consisted of friends, neighbors, churches, charities, civic groups and communities.
The net wasn’t always perfect, but it was local, it was selfless and it was voluntary, the mark of true charity.
I’ve always been a firm believer that people acting out of compassion, empathy and the spirit of generosity ? not government agencies and bureaucrats acting according to rules and regulations ? are the best ones to help others who truly need it.
My faith in people helping people was once again reaffirmed last week when I received a call from Addison resident Margaret Koski.
It seems that the late Eric LeFeuvre, the 43-year-old Addison resident tragically killed in car crash last week (see story on page 2), left behind a wife and two small daughters, ages 1 and 10.
The 10-year-old is a fifth-grader at Leonard Elementary.
According to Koski, LeFeuvre was on his way to buy diapers when he was killed.
Koski wanted some advice about conducting a spaghetti dinner in the near future to help LeFeuvre’s family pay their bills and keep the home they built in the township. ‘There was no life insurance policy,? she explained.
LeFeuvre was apparently working two jobs at Romeo Motor Parts and Romeo Computer to make ends meet. His wife was already working a full-time job and is now the family’s sole means of support.
I gave Koski some advice about the dinner and suggested she contact the good folks at Oxford Bank about setting up an account to collect donations.
As a result, those who wish to help out financially can now do so by contributing to ‘The Eric LeFeuvre Benefit Fund? at any of Oxford Bank’s eight branches.
As for the spaghetti dinner, Koski’s working on it and I’ve promised to write an article promoting it once she gets all the details ironed out.
In the meantime, those who wish to help out with the dinner or help the LeFeuvre family directly are encouraged to contact Koski at (248) 628-3098.
I’d like to personally commend Koski for her willingness to get involved and for demonstrating that when tragedy strikes, none of us is really alone.

We need to start raising a ruckus and kill this bus millage before it can make it to the ballot in August 2010.
A few weeks ago I penned a couple of news articles about the ill-conceived public transit tax that Oakland County Commissioner Steve Schwartz, a Democrat representing Farmington and Farmington Hills, wants stick on the ballot next year.
Oh sure, on the surface, it all sounds nice and democratic. Put a half-mill proposal before county voters in the primary election and let the will of the people decide.
One man, one vote ? what could be more fair, more American than that?
But a closer look reveals it’s yet another ploy by the money-grubbing, tax-and-spend southern half of this county to milk the more conservative northern end out of its hard-earned dollars.
Right now, every community in the county has the right to ‘opt in? or ‘opt out? of the SMART bus system.
Of the 61 communities in Oakland, a whopping 38 of them, including Oxford and Addison townships, have rejected SMART service and the tax that comes with it.
Granted, if any of these communities ever changed their mind, local officials could easily put a SMART millage on the ballot and let local voters decide.
Unlike Commissioner Schwartz, I like the fact that individual communities have the freedom and the power to choose under the current system. That’s a beautiful thing in my book, not something to be stamped out.
Schwartz? draconian proposal would rob communities of that precious choice and leave it up to the entire county to opt in or out as a single amorphous blob.
The result? The greedy south could use the ballot box like a weapon to plunder the unsuspecting north.
The urbanized, densely-populated southern end of the county has a much, much larger population than the rural, sparsely-populated northern end.
And there are a lot more Democrats down there.
We could very easily be outvoted every time.
Mark my words, if this millage gets on the ballot and passes, northerners won’t see SMART buses filled with smiling faces around here; they’ll see buses filled with bags of their tax dollars, heading south at warp speed.
All but two of the 23 SMART communities are concentrated in the southeastern portion of the county. Pontiac and Auburn Hills are the northernmost SMART communities.
The southern communities desperately want our cash because SMART is a bottomless money pit and they know it.
But instead of making cuts, increasing efficiency or raising rider fares, they’d rather tax more communities.
That’s the essence of the Democratic Party’s philosophy ? Actually fixing problems is too hard. Making everyone equally miserable is easy. (Example: universal health care.)
According to a Sept. 1 analysis done by Deputy County Executive Jerry Poisson, even if the current SMART tax of 0.59 mills was renewed by all of Macomb County and by voters in SMART communities in Oakland and Wayne counties, the bus system estimates it still faces revenue shortfalls of about $6 million in 2011 and $17 million in 2012.
Forcing the 38 ‘opt-out? communities to pay Schwartz? proposed 0.50-mill SMART tax would result in an additional $5.4 million for the bus service, still not enough to make up for the projected shortfalls, according to Poisson.
So what exactly would the north gain from Schwartz? proposal other than higher taxes and part ownership of a failing, deficit-ridden bus service that’s been mismanaged from its inception? Absolutely nothing.
Fortunately, our county Commissioner Brad Jacobsen (R-Oxford) has already voiced his opposition to placing any sort of county-wide bus millage on the ballot.
We need to support him with tons of letters and e-mails he can share with his fellow commissioners.
Jacobsen’s e-mail is bradjgolf@yahoo.com.
We’ve already got a locally-controlled and funded public transit system called the North Oakland Transportation Authority (NOTA) and it does just fine serving the needs of Oxford, Addison and Orion residents, who are senior citizens, disabled, part of the welfare-to-work program or transit dependent (i.e. no driver’s license or vehicle).
Not only does NOTA do the job, but let’s compare costs.
At present, the 23 SMART communities each pay a tax rate of 0.59 mills for bus service. If Oxford was an opt-in town, such a millage rate would generate $467,524 a year.
Right now, Oxford contributes ? from its existing budget, no separate millage ? $79,500 annually toward NOTA.
Which sounds like a better deal to you? I rest my case.

I’d like to respond to a few things stated in the letter to the editor submitted by Mr. Gibbons and Mr. Peruski.
I agree it made perfect sense economically, given the current financial state, to move a teacher from Leonard to Daniel Axford.
In fact, the news article I penned on Page 3 of the Sept. 16 edition discussed at length the classroom sizes at both schools and the economic reasons behind the decision. I guess they missed that one.
Nowhere in last week’s column did I state that I thought it was a bad decision. I simply offered another option, which I will address again later in this column.
The whole point of my column last week was Leonard parents feel like they’re being dumped on and shortchanged, and if the district doesn’t start showing them some love this could adversely affect the bond proposals chance for success.
I was trying to offer some helpful advice because there’s a great deal of discontent in Leonard/Addison.
I’m sure many Leonard parents understand the economic reasons behind their loss of a teacher, but it doesn’t change how they feel or perceive things.
And by the way, if the union leadership is so terribly concerned about making things fair and equal at all the elementaries, then maybe teachers should be paid based on their class size. Is it really fair for a teacher with 16 or 17 kids to make the same salary as one with 28 or 29 kids?
Maybe we need to tweak that teachers contract a bit.
Mr. Gibbons and Mr. Peruski made the statement ? ‘Ideally, funding for the district would allow us to hire another kindergarten teacher at Daniel Axford without affecting staffing in another building, but reality does not afford us that solution.?
Yes, the reality does afford us that solution.
We have five central administrators who earn a combined $607,748 (not including benefits) per year. It would be very easy and completely painless to cut $13,000 per year from each of their salaries to hire another teacher and not affect a single school, class or student in the district.
It’s been my impression that other than a few notable exceptions, there isn’t an administrator alive who’s job or salary is more important than a teacher in the classroom.
It’s ironic that the higher up you advance in the education field ? the further removed you are from the day-to-day interaction with students, the most critical part of education ? the more money you earn. In my world, teachers would make more than administrators, hands down.
Does anyone else find it absolutely obscene that our superintendent earns $141,500 a year ? not including benefits like that $8,400 allowance for auto/mileage ? while the governor of this state earns $177,000?
Strictly looking at just the scope of their responsibilities and duties (not their individual job performances), the governor has a much, much, much bigger job than any school superintendent in the state.
And yet our superintendent earns only $35,500 less?
The governor oversees a state of 58,110 square miles (not counting water) with approximately 50,000 state government employees. Our superintendent oversees a school district of 96 square miles with about 540 employees.
I know, I know, we pay superintendents so much money because this is hoity-toity Oakland County and you have to pay that to get good people. Blah, blah, blah.
Well, to that argument, I say that every single superintendent in this county is grossly overpaid.
And frankly, I’m sick and tired of this Keeping-Up-With-The-Joneses mentality when it comes to paying government folks. I don’t care what Troy and Birmingham or even Clarkston and Orion are paying their superintendents.
I don’t care if the Oxford superintendent’s salary ranks 21st out of the 28 superintendents in the county. It’s still too much in my opinion.
If you decide to work for the government, especially a local unit, you shouldn’t command a large salary nor should you expect to. You’re government employees, not rock stars, as my publisher, Jim Sherman, Jr., is fond of saying.
Finally, I respectfully disagree when it comes to the associate superintendent position that costs us $115,000 per year (again, not including benefits) being a good thing.
Right now, the associate superintendent, Denise Sweat, handles special education, secondary curriculum at OHS and the district’s counselors and social workers.
We used to have a director of special education position. I say we get rid of the associate superintendent position, make Sweat director of special ed. and pay her less.
The other duties she’s performing outside of special education can simply be divided up among the other four superintendents. Pay Sweat less to do less. Let the rest do more with no raises. Save the district some cash.
That’s the way the rest of the economy is working these days. Why should government be immune?

If the Oxford school district would like its bond proposal to pass Nov. 3, it had better start courting voters in the Village of Leonard and Addison Township.
Our neighbors to the east feel like they’ve been getting the shaft lately.
First, the district foolishly moved Leonard Elementary’s wildly popular principal, Joyce Brasington, over to Daniel Axford ? right after she helped Leonard win a state Blue Ribbon.
Talk about terrible timing.
Then the district collaborated on a special section with that newspaper in Pontiac, the latter of which forgot to list Leonard Elementary on the cover with all the other schools. Oops!
And then, just last week, the district moved one of Leonard’s teachers over to Daniel Axford in Oxford, causing a classroom shuffle at Leonard that did not please some people.
I had a school district employee unhappy with the most recent change shoot me an e-mail suggesting they cut the administrators? salaries to hire a new teacher at DA instead of taking one from Leonard.
Not a bad idea. After all, I agree with what Superintendent Skilling said in last week’s paper ? ‘The most important factor in the quality of education is still the teacher.?
It costs $65,000 between wages and benefits to hire a new teacher, so why not just cut $13,000 each from the annual salaries of the superintendent ($141,500), deputy superintendent ($118,382), two assistant superintendents ($116,433 each) and associate superintendent ($115,000)?
That’s $607,748 (not including benefits) for five people.
Or how about just eliminating one of the five top administrators altogether? We used to get along just fine with four central administrators. But I digress . . .
Bottom line ? Leonard’s feeling like the proverbial redheaded stepchild these days. ‘Short end of the stick? is a phrase that’s being bandied about in those parts.
It will be interesting to see how all this plays out in the upcoming bond election. You may recall in the February school election, Addison voters soundly rejected the bond by a margin of 518-240. Considering the bond failed district-wide by 289 votes, Addison’s rejection played a significant role in that defeat.
Oxford Schools would be very wise to start throwing some love Leonard’s way. If you want to pass a bond, you’re going to need Addison/Leonard’s support.
Here’s a quick history lesson for the newcomers.
Back in September 1995, Addison/Leonard voters rejected a $44 million school bond proposal by a margin of 713-50 because they vehemently opposed plans to drop Leonard Elementary as a K-5 school and build the new middle school at Seymour Lake and Coats road.
Overall, that bond failed district-wide 1,484-1,164.
Lo and behold the district comes back and puts two bond proposals, totalling $47.3 million, on the December 1995 ballot. Only this time, the proposals kept Leonard as a K-5, didn’t lock in a location for the new OMS and included $1.6 million for Leonard that wasn’t in the previous bond.
The result ? Addison/Leonard voters still rejected it.
But they didn’t reject it nearly as bad as the first bond, which overall, helped the proposals pass district-wide.
The number of ‘yes? votes in Addison/Leonard increased from a mere 50 in the September election to 180 for Proposal A and 128 for Proposal B in December.
My point is Leonard Elementary and Addison Township are part of the Oxford school district.
Treat them well and don’t ignore or dismiss them. Otherwise, they’ll go to the polls and thump you a good one.
Remember, every vote counts ? not just Oxford ones.

I’ll keep my column short this week because the topic is just so stupid.
People must be bored, nuts or both because I’ve never witnessed such hysteria over nothing as I have with President Barack Obama’s speech to America’s school students (see story on page 5).
Let me just say for the record, I’m no fan of Obama. I think he’s a Socialist at heart. I think he has nothing new to offer the country, just the same old mantra of ‘More government! More government!?
That being said, you folks on the Right ? of which I am one ? stop being so paranoid about everything this guy does.
You look like fools. There are plenty of legitimate things to criticize Obama about without accusing him of trying to poison our children’s minds
The speech was a pep talk to motivate the nation’s students to stay in school and do their best. Nothing radical. Nothing political. Nothing controversial. No violence, nudity or sex. Just the same things adults from both parties are always telling kids.
There was no need to threaten to keep the kids home from school. There was no need to see the text before the speech was aired. There was no need for parents to be there, sitting right next to their students during the broadcast as if they were watching something that could be traumatic.
It was the President of the United States giving an innocuous speech on education, something which all presidents should promote to young people.
He wasn’t exhorting students to form collective farms, tear down the bourgeoisie and rat out their Republican parents to the FBI. Get a grip, people.
As for the self-righteous Left, watching Obama speak is not a mandatory activity ? at least not yet anyway. Schools were free to show the speech or not show it.
That’s how we do things in America ? we make choices. It’s that darn Free Will.
To suggest that not showing the speech was somehow un-American, racist or disrespectful to the president is ludicrous.
It was just another speech ? one that kids and parents can easily choose to watch at their leisure anytime on the internet. No one’s being denied the opportunity to view it.
Oxford students will get to see a taped version of the speech instead of the live one ? big deal.
I wonder if those smug elitists on the Left would have been this upset had some school districts decided not to air a speech by President George W. Bush ? that guy liberals were always calling a liar, a dictator, a bumbling dolt and a war criminal.
What was that you said about respecting the Office of the President?
I’m sorry, I couldn’t hear you over the deafening sound of your hypocrisy.
I guess we only have to respect presidents which the Left deems to be Messiahs.
As far as the lesson plans made available by the U.S. Department of Education to go with Obama’s speech, they too were completely optional ? not to mention totally unnecessary ? and I didn’t see anything in there that even remotely looked like indoctrination material or socialist brainwashing.
Everybody who got so worked up over over this speech is silly and really needs to get a life.
Now you can all stomp your feet and get mad at me instead of each other.
As far as the lesson plans made available to go with Obama’s speech, they were completely optional ? not to mention totally unnecessary ? and I didn’t see anything in there that looked like indoctrination material or socialist brainwashing.
Everybody who got so worked up over this speech is silly and really needs to get a life. Now you can all stomp your little feet and get mad at me instead of each other.

‘We strongly recommend voters REJECT the school bond proposal, then let the district come back and ask them for what it really needs, not what it wants.?
? Feb. 18, 2009 Oxford Leader editorial
I have to give credit where credit is due.
It appears the Oxford school district did exactly what this newspaper said to do with its latest bond proposals scheduled to be on the Tuesday, Nov. 3 ballot (see story on page 1).
I was extremely pleased to see the district went from a bloated $70.135 million bond issue to a much more reasonable pair of proposals totaling $33.335 million.
A 52 percent decrease is music to my ears because it ultimately means less dollars taken out of taxpayers? wallets, which is never a bad thing.
It also means the school district actually listened to the voters. It’s always cause for celebration when government listens to someone other than itself or the sycophantic echo chamber that usually surrounds it.
Unlike some people, I don’t view millage and bond elections as life-or-death situations. Nor does my brain turn to mush when someone tells me, ‘It’s for the kids.?
In other words, I don’t believe in running around like a chicken with my head cut off, screaming ‘If this millage doesn’t pass, our kids will have no futures, our homes will be worthless and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse will come galloping through downtown Oxford!!!?
To me, millages and bond proposals are simply negotiations between governments and taxpayers ? kind of like when you go to buy a new car. The dealer slides you a piece of paper with a number on it. The customer can either accept that number as is or reject it and tell the dealer to come back with a more reasonable figure.
Back in February, a total of 2,191 voters rejected the school district’s ‘sticker price? and told it to come back with a better offer, which I’m happy to report it did.
Based on what I’ve seen, this bond proposal, with a few exceptions, seems more about what the district truly needs as opposed to what it wants.
This proposal focuses on the real nuts and bolts of what it takes to keep the district going ? roofs, infrastructure, technology, doors and windows, etc.
It’s much more modest and basic than the failed proposal. As a taxpayer, I can appreciate the streamlining.
As it stands right now, unless something changes my mind, I’m personally ? my opinion, not the newspaper’s ? leaning heavily toward voting in favor of Proposal A, which totals $32.7 million.
As for Proposal B, the $635,000 one that deals solely with the football stadium at OHS, I’m personally leaning toward a ‘no.?
I know it’s sacrilege to say it out loud in this town and I’ll probably be lynched, but I’ll never buy in to the idea that academics, athletics and arts are all equal.
In my book, academics will now and forever be Number One, followed by arts and then athletics. Students go to school for an education, not to play sports. Athletics make for nifty side dishes, but academics is the main course. As such, the financial priority for my hard-earned tax dollars lies with academics, first and foremost.
I was pleased to learn that this time there won’t be any kind of ‘vote yes? campaign supporting the bond proposal.
I agree with the superintendent that aggressive campaigns ? which the February one definitely was in my opinion ? run the risk of alienating voters. Even when it’s a cause or candidate that I support, I still hate getting multiple, annoying phone calls bugging me to vote a certain way.
A purely informational campaign that simply gives facts, answers questions and reminds people to vote is vastly superior to one that tells people how to vote.
I’m glad to see the district is choosing the informational route this time around.
The decision to not accept any campaign funding ? corporate or otherwise ? is also a wise one. It really bothered me that during the February campaign the main two companies slated to work on the bond improvements ? and profit by them ? donated a combined $5,976 in cash, goods and in-kind services to the ‘vote yes? campaign.
I know this kind of thing is done all the time in big time politics, but it struck me as unethical. It left an extremely bad taste in my mouth that the only two contributors to a supposedly ‘community-driven? campaign were out-of-town companies looking to make a buck.
I was glad the superintendent assured me there won’t be any campaign contributions this time around.
All in all, I have to say I’m fairly pleased.
The people spoke, the school district listened and this election’s being held in November, when elections should be held.
NOTE: In response to the letter to the editor regarding unions, no newspaper columnist or editorial writer with any kind of integrity would ever adjust the opinions they publish so as to not conflict with the views of an advertiser or subscribers.
Money, or the potential loss of it, will never dictate what my opinions are.
To suggest that I should not ‘bite the hand that feeds? me is tantamount to saying I should give up my First Amendment rights, stick my finger in the air to see which way the wind’s blowing, then write an opinion that most people will find acceptable.
I will not bow to anyone’s attempt at censorship, be it from the government or a subscriber. We all have a right to express our opinion and mine’s not for sale.

Kudos to Addison firefighters for eighty-sixing their union representation (see story on page 1).
Unions are a lot like the useless human appendix ? they serve no real function, but from time to time they can make you sick and have to be ripped out for the good of the body.
Actually, I should apologize for the above statement since I just read on AOL News that researchers now say the appendix does indeed perform a critical function as a safehouse for ‘good bacteria.?
I’m sorry, appendix. I shouldn’t have compared you to unions. Unlike them, you serve a purpose.
I’m always glad to see one less union in the world, so hats off to Addison’s firefighters. You made a wise decision.
* * * *
I’d also like to pass some praise onto Steve Stoll, owner of Hi-Hill Lawn Service, for his plans to transform the vacant James Lumber property in Oxford Village into an outdoor power equipment retail center (see story on page 3).
It takes real intestinal fortitude to open a new business during the best of times.
To start one in an economy like this takes sheer nerves of steel.
If this economy is ever going to get moving again, it won’t be because of government bailouts, stimulus monies or Obamanomics (i.e. that thing we used to call socialism).
It will be because entrepreneurs like Steve Stoll had the faith, the vision, the courage and the knowledge to invest in their local communities.
Based on what Stoll told me, it appears he’ll be hiring anywhere from 19-23 employees next spring, which is great news for locals in need of jobs.
It’s my understanding there are some on the Downtown Development Authority who aren’t pleased with Stoll’s idea because they had a different vision for the former James Lumber property or they don’t think his business plan fits that area.
At one time, there was talk of the DDA wanting to see a mixed use there consisting of shopping, entertainment and housing such as lofts or townhouses.
But the DDA doesn’t own the property, so it’s not their call what goes there.
Government really has to get over its desire to control private property and free enterprise.
The DDA should be happy that someone is finally purchasing a property that’s sat vacant for nearly three years and was well on its way to becoming an abandoned eyesore.
The DDA should be happy that somebody’s planning to bring jobs, shoppers and additional tax revenue to a community that desperately needs all three.
If the DDA wants to fret about some vacant property, it should focus its concern on the three E. Burdick Street parcels that it’s owned since 2002 and still hasn’t been able to sell.
Beggars can’t be choosers.
* * * *
Talking to Mark Sowers, the gentleman picketing Oxford Bank last week, I really felt for the guy (see story on page 1).
I can’t understand why the bank won’t work with this poor man. I really wish the bank had given me their side of this story.
Based on what I know, it seems to me that it would be best for all concerned to lower Mr. Sowers? monthly house payment to a more manageable amount.
He could potentially keep his Orion home while the bank continues to collect payments and avoids having yet another foreclosed property on its books.
That would be a win-win situation.
I wish Mr. Sowers good luck in the fight to keep his home and keep his head above water in these stormy economic times.
* * * *
And finally, I’d like to wish 2002 OHS graduate Nathan Bunker all the best in his efforts to obtain funding for the film he’s producing out in California (see story on page 5).
I’m glad my July 22 article about him helped generate local interest in his project.
I hope Oxford gets behind Bunker to help make him a success and hopefully, put this community on the map when he mentions us during his Oscar acceptance speech.

I won’t lie to you ? I love to win.
There’s nothing better than putting your mind, body and soul into something, achieving your goals, then being recognized for it ? especially on a national level.
As you might have noticed on the front page of this week’s paper, The Oxford Leader won a General Excellence award in the National Newspaper Association’s Best of Newspaper in Education Contest.
Words can’t begin to describe how absolutely thrilled I was when I found out we won this.
I’ve won many regional and state awards during my 10-year career, but this is my first national honor and it tastes mighty sweet.
I feel like Sally Field winning an Oscar ? ‘You like me, you really like me!?
I’m just glad I was able to help bring some positive national attention to the community of Oxford and its school system.
God ? and my wife ? only knows how much time I’ve spent covering school events over the years.
When I finished compiling all the clippings of just the things I personally covered during the 2008-09 school year, the binder was about three inches thick.
I couldn’t believe I did all that. It looked like a phone book.
But I must admit I didn’t do it alone.
There’s a lot of people I’d like to thank for making this award possible.
First, allow me thank all the teachers, principals and parents who call and e-mail the paper to let us know about everything from classroom activities and recorder concerts to awards presentations and plays.
Keep those story ideas, news tips and photo opportunities flowing during the 2009-2010 school year.
Next, I’d like to thank all the students who every week fill our pages with their achievements and smiling faces.
It continues to be a pleasure recording the highlights of your school careers for posterity.
Ninety-nine percent of the student-related stories and photos published in this newspaper are items you won’t find in other papers, like the ones in Pontiac and Detroit.
I especially enjoy it when I’m able to publish a student’s name or face for the very first time in his or her school career.
When I think about all the family scrapbooks my articles and photos are in, it fills me with an overwhelming sense of pride.
Hard to believe that when I started at this newspaper in May 1999, the Class of 2010 was just finishing up the first grade.
Where does the time go?
I’d like to thank the Sherman family for giving me the opportunity to do the job I love everyday.
Through thick and thin, they’ve always supported me. I couldn’t ask for a better group of people to work for.
And last, but certainly not least, I’d like to thank my wife.
In the past when I’ve won awards, I’ve written about how integral Connie is to my work process.
All I can say this time is this is just as much her award as it is mine.
I couldn’t do what I do as well as I do without her in my life supporting me, encouraging me, helping me and giving me great ideas and new ways to look at things.
Connie really is the unpaid coeditor of The Oxford Leader and I couldn’t ask for a better partner in my career or my life.
Well, I guess that’s it.
Oops, I almost forgot to thank my little orange cat, Duncan.
Whenever I’m working in my home office, Duncan never fails to hop up on my desk and provide everything from companionship to stress relief.
The minute he hears my fingers hitting the keyboard he comes running to help.
Maybe I’ll finally give him that column he’s been lobbying for . . .

‘Never ASSUME because when you ASSUME, you make an ASS of U and ME.? ? Felix Unger
Oxford and Addison residents should count themselves very fortunate to have a cable station that makes every effort to videotape and broadcast their local government meetings.
People can tune into Oxford Community Television on any given day or night and watch township boards, village councils, planning commissions, the school board and the various alphabet boards (DDA, NOTA, PATMC, etc.) conduct their public meetings.
Granted, most of the time local government meetings are terribly boring. Government is by nature very dull.
Sometimes the only thing worse than being at a meeting is watching it on television. At least at home, I don’t have to wear pants and I can drink Scotch.
But it’s still important that these meetings are taped and broadcast so that people who do take an interest in their local government, but can’t attend meetings due to work, family or other commitments, can still keep up with things like new ordinances and how their tax dollars are being spent.
From working mothers to elderly shut-ins, Channel 19 offers residents a window into all of their local governments without having to leave their living room.
Fortunately, the Open Meetings Act (OMA) ensures the public will never be denied their right to see these meetings.
The act clearly states, ‘The right of a person to attend a meeting of a public body includes the right to tape-record, to videotape, to broadcast live on radio, and to telecast on television the proceedings of a public body at a public meeting.?
And because this is a right, you don’t need the government’s permission ? ‘The exercise of this right shall not be dependent upon the prior approval of the public body.? (OMA)
Imagine living in a place where you had to ask the government’s permission to exercise your rights? The moment you have to ask, it ceases to become a right.
I’m sure there are some public officials out there who oppose having TV cameras at meetings because they believe such devices inhibit discussion and make people uncomfortable. Frankly, that’s just too darn bad.
If an elected or appointed official doesn’t feel like he or she is able to speak freely at a public meeting in front of a live audience or a TV camera or even a newspaper reporter, they probably shouldn’t be sitting on a board to begin with.
When a person is elected or appointed to office ? no matter how big or small that office is ? they become a public figure and as such they’re subject to public scrutiny, which includes having their actions and words recorded.
We call them ‘public officials? because they work for the public. We supposedly value transparency, so we require officials to conduct the public’s business at public meetings, which all of us have a right by law to attend or watch on local cable thanks to the OMA.
I’m sure some public officials will argue there’s no point to taping these meetings because most of the time they’re attended by only a handful of citizens or no one at all.
A lack of interest on the public’s part should not be used as a reason or an excuse to eliminate an easily-accessible avenue through which people can exercise their right to know with the click of a remote control.
Besides, we don’t know how many people out there watch local meetings at home and stay informed that way.
I’m quite sure the number wouldn’t set a Nielsen Ratings record, but I know there’s a dedicated group of local watchdogs out there who regularly view the meetings.
Over the years, I’ve received more than a few calls from residents that began with the words, ‘I was watching a meeting on the local cable channel the other night and I heard this guy say . . .?
The great thing about community television is officials never know who’s watching and taking notes. It’s yet another way to keep them in line and on their toes.
One of the worst things a public official can do is assume that no one attends their meetings because everyone trusts them and thinks they’re doing a fantastic job.
It is the height of arrogance to hold such an opinion.
Most people don’t go to public meetings because: A) They simply don’t have time; B) They don’t care (until something affects their property or pocketbook); C) They don’t think it will do any good or change things; or D) They’re afraid of slipping into a Sunny von Bulow-type coma from which there’s no hope of return.
Public officials shouldn’t assume everything’s perfect because no one’s in the audience complaining.
NOTE: I will be on vacation from July 22 through Aug. 6. Please direct any story tips to reporter Wendi Reardon.

Guns have always been a part of my life.
When I was little, I played with toy guns almost everyday until I graduated to a Daisy BB gun. I never did put my eye out or anyone else’s.
Being an avid hunter, my dad always had shotguns, rifles and handguns around the house. They were always locked up and I knew not to touch.
When I was 12 years old, I got my first shotgun, a 20-gauge single shot for hunting pheasant and rabbits. I still have that gun. You never forget your first.
A few years ago, I bought my first rifle as I took up deer hunting ? a right of passage every red-blooded Michigan male should try at least once.
I’m thinking about my lifelong love of firearms this week because of the front-page story I wrote about the Open Carry Picnic to be held at Seymour Lake Township Park on Sunday, Aug. 2.
I’m sure some hysterical people out there will panic when they read the article and start calling the parks and recreation department to voice their shock and outrage.
But the bottom line is there’s absolutely nothing wrong with a group of law-abiding, responsible gun owners gathering in a public park for a picnic while openly wearing their legally-registered side arms.
I highly doubt they’re going to start shooting at the Kids Kingdom play structure like Pancho Villa gone mad.
I was extremely impressed by the picnic’s organizer, 29-year-old Oxford resident John Roshek.
During my interview with him, he was eloquent, passionate, rational and sincere about protecting and promoting his legal right to openly carry a handgun.
He was the exact opposite of how liberal anti-gun nuts try to falsely portray the majority of honest firearms owners in this country.
People who hate guns and think no one should own them are by and large an ignorant group of folks.
They judge all firearms and their owners by the bad things that bad people do with guns.
They ignore the fact that every single day millions upon millions of decent, responsible gun owners don’t commit any crimes or kill any innocent people.
Instead, they focus on the minority responsible for all the violent acts we see splashed across the TV news.
In most cases, these criminals obtained their guns through a variety of illegal means, ranging from theft to black market sales to dishonest dealers.
The anti-gun lobby’s basic premise that guns are evil is preposterous. On their own, guns are neither good nor bad. Guns are simply objects, tools to be used for various tasks and activities.
How a gun is used can be judged good or bad. The person using the gun can be judged good or bad.
But the gun itself is a morally neutral thing.
As a nation founded by gun-owning individuals, we should have more respect for firearms and the important role they’ve played and still play in our lives.
Let us not forget that it was the gun ? combined with the bravery of the man pulling the trigger ? that ultimately won us our freedom from Great Britain.
Our Declaration of Independence would have been just flowery words written on a piece of parchment had it not been backed up by the blast of a Minute Man’s musket.

Anyone who’s read my column regularly over the last 10 years knows I haven’t been a fan of the Oxford Village Council.
Previous councils have made some tremendously bad decisions.
Here are some low-lights:
n Wasted more than $25,000 pushing for cityhood only to have voters reject it.
n Wasted $3,000 on 250 baseball hats embroidered with the Scripter Park logo.
n Shelled out $186,000 over four years to a computer company owned by a convicted felon and operated out of his home. But don’t worry he was the husband of the village president at the time.
n Seized possession of the old fire hall, even though the village doesn’t own it outright.
n Selected Tom ‘Love for Sale? Athans to be village president.
Ahh, nothing like reminiscing about the Bad Old Days. I can taste the bile now.
But I must say I’ve been very pleased with the current council’s decisions.
This council cut village residents? property taxes by ONE FULL MILL, which contrary to the deranged assertions of some people is a very good thing.
This council privatized the water treatment plant’s operation, saving village residents money now and in the long run.
This council cut a full-time employee from the village offices, which saves taxpayers $39,865 in wages and $25,634 in benefits.
Amazingly, the village office has one less employee, yet still manages to function efficiently. The village didn’t collapse into ruins as feared.
This council constructed a brand new $2.4 million water treatment plant giving residents soft water ? something they had been paying for, but hadn’t been receiving for quite some time.
And this council wouldn’t have had to spend all that money at once on a new plant had previous councils kept up with what was going on there and took corrective measures to fix things.
‘Previous councils have known the water plant was deteriorating and nothing was done,? said former village Clerk Rose Bejma at the May 26 council meeting.
The current village council has done a lot of good things in a short time.
At long last, this village has a council interested in making real tax cuts, while down-sizing and streamlining government operations.
I certainly don’t agree with all of the council members all of the time, but I agree with enough of what they’ve done so far to say I want this council to stay as is.
For the first time in 10 years, I can honestly say I’m proud of the job the Oxford Village Council’s doing and have no complaints whatsoever.
And for a guy who absolutely, positively hates government in all of its wretched forms, that’s saying a lot.

Over the years I’ve written columns defending smokers? rights against the tyranny of overzealous do-gooders.
I’ve also waxed poetic about the tobacco shop, Maison Edwards, I used to work at in Ann Arbor during my years at the University of Michigan.
But I’ve never really written, from a philosophical standpoint, about the pure joys of lighting up a fine hand-rolled cigar, something I’ve been doing now for 16 years.
It seems like only yesterday I bought my first Ashton cigar at the now-defunct Humidor One in Southfield.
I’d like to dedicate this column to those people who really don’t understand the pleasures a premium cigar can produce and the serenity it brings.
Maybe if more people understood the things that bring others pleasure, the things that enhance life, they wouldn’t be so quick to take them away through draconian laws, excessive taxes and incessant nagging.
Understanding is the key to tolerance.
A cigar is truly an exhilarating treat for all the senses before, during and after its smoking.
Your eyes are immediately attracted to the rich color of the cigar’s wrapper ? the outer tobacco leaf that holds a cigar’s inner components together and is responsible for 60 percent or more of a stogie’s flavor.
A cigar’s wrapper comes in a variety of shades from light brown to almost black (or maduro).
Eagerly anticipating the distinct flavors each of these wrappers is capable of producing sends a signal to my mouth that makes it water uncontrollably as if I was smelling a freshly-cooked lobster or a thick steak hot off the grill.
When you pick up a cigar, your fingers immediately feel the silky or oily texture of the wrapper, producing a sensual delight that would make even the most ardent Puritan blush.
Taking time to savor the scent of a premium stogie prior to lighting is akin to enjoying the bouquet of a fine wine or single malt Scotch before taking that first life-affirming sip.
The simple act of exercising your olfactory system greatly enhances what your mouth and brain experience because research has shown that 70-75 percent of taste relies on smell.
After you’ve clipped a cigar and begin to light it, your nose is treated to the heady aroma of the aged tobacco as it’s toasted and begins its slow burn.
Once its fully lit, the first puff is an amazing experience.
No matter how many times I’ve tasted that first bit of smoke, it never fails to produce instant satisfaction.
You draw the smoke into your mouth and hold it there, so it can dance across your tongue, swirl around the roof of your mouth and drift by your cheeks.
Then you slowly exhale and watch the smoke gently rise, filling the air around you and forming a cocoon from which you will later emerge in a transformed state.
It feels as if the smoke is literally carrying all your troubles, all your cares, all your worries out of your fatigued body, leaving you relaxed and refreshed.
Smoking a cigar is largely a meditative experience.
That’s why I enjoy smoking those that take anywhere from one to two hours to consume. It forces me to sit still, contemplate life and reflect on my place in the universe.
Or, if you’ve already got too much on your mind, you can clear your head by watching the blue smoke as it curls upward, forming shapes and patterns before it dissipates into nothingness.
I’ve often thought of a cigar as a metaphor for life.
The ash represents the past with all its pleasant memories of good times and cherished friends.
The slowly burning ring between the ash and unsmoked tobacco represents the fleeting present. Now is all we really have for sure, so we must embrace it, enjoy it, savor it.
The tobacco waiting to be smoked is the future full of new flavors and roads not yet traveled.
A cigar is more than just a smoke to me. It’s part of who I am. It’s part of my lifestyle. It’s an extension of my personality. I think if more people smoked cigars, this world would be a better place. I know the effect cigars have on me. I’ve seen the effect on my fellow aficionados.
It relaxes you. It makes you friendlier and more open. It gladdens the heart and gives people a common bond.
I urge everyone ? both gentlemen and ladies ? to go light up a cigar after reading this column.
Bring some peace to yourself and maybe it will help bring some peace to this troubled world.

Much like the late John Lennon, I too am a dreamer.
But instead of dreaming about some silly hippie Utopia where nobody owns any property, I dream about a world where everybody minds their own business and leaves each other alone.
Just to be clear, I don’t mean a selfish Ayn Rand-type of world where there’s no charity, no compassion, no self-sacrifice, no sense of community.
I just want a world where people stop butting their noses in other folks? affairs and telling them how to live.
I dream of a live-and-let live-type of society where as long as your actions aren’t violating someone else’s rights or property, you’re free to do as you please, say what you want and be who you are.
That’s not to say I want people to stop expressing opinions about ideas and actions with which they disagree.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with speaking your mind or trying to persuade others to your viewpoint.
I just want people stop pushing for new laws and other government action designed to force others to live a certain way.
I am equally appalled by both the Politically Correct Left and the Moral Majoritarian Right.
Both sides are filled with disgusting, tyrannical hypocrites from the Health Police who would take away our tobacco, booze and fatty foods to the self-appointed Guardians of Righteousness who wish to dictate what we read, watch and listen to.
Anyone who wants to force you to live their way because they want to save your health, save your soul or because they think they know better than you is wrong.
Two prime examples of cases where people should mind their own business arose in the pages of our sister newspapers The Clarkston News and The Lake Orion Review.
In Clarkston, there’s been an on-going brouhaha over a rather large mural being painted on the side of the Clarkston News? building. Apparently, there are folks who think it’s ugly and should be erased from public view.
Some busybodies even complained to the city council and wanted officials to act. Recently, one person wrote in and suggested a community-wide vote be held to determine the public’s feelings on the mural.
What all these people fail to understand is the building is private property.
Unless it’s obscene or illegal, it’s none of their business what’s painted on the building because they don’t own it, they don’t pay taxes on it and they don’t pay to maintain it.
Just because you think something’s ugly doesn’t give you the right to force someone to alter their property to conform to your aesthetic view of the world.
There’s no constitutional right to be protected from things that don’t coincide with our personal tastes.
There are a couple of businesses in downtown Oxford that are painted with atrocious colors in my opinion, but I’m not about to demand action from the DDA or village council.
Why? Because it’s none of my concern.
The other situation is in Orion Township where a woman recently opened a business that teaches pole-dancing as a form of exercise.
Yes, pole-dancing is an activity born in strip clubs.
However, it has become a popular form of exercise for ladies of all ages and all walks of life.
It’s a great cardio workout and a fun way to lose weight, according to those who do it.
This new business isn’t violating any laws. The participants keep all of their clothes on during the classes.
There’s no private, champagne lounge and nobody’s walking out of there with a waistband full of dollar bills.
Despite these facts, someone wrote a letter to the Review stating how this new enterprise ‘brings down the moral character of our community.?
The writer then asked, ‘What can be done to protect our township?? My answer ? nothing.
Because the business is doing nothing wrong.
If you don’t like it, don’t go there. Case closed.
I’m sorry the writer finds the business offensive, but there is no constitutional right against being offended.
The very idea you can have a free society in which people are never offended or insulted is absurd.
Equally absurd is the notion that people should have the right to call on the government to defend them against offense or insult.
And when it comes to ‘moral character? we should all start worrying more about our own before we begin to fret about what others are doing. Those who preach about morality the loudest in public usually have the dirtiest secrets lurking in their closets and on their hard drives.
My world view is quite simple ? When my neighbor needs help, I’ll always be there to lend a hand.
But as far as what goes on inside his home or how he lives his life, as long as it doesn’t infringe on my rights, that’s his business and it’s not my place or the government’s place to say otherwise.
I hope some day you’ll join me and the world will live as one.

I’ve never been a fan of labor unions.
Once upon a time, when working conditions were extremely hazardous, the workday was unbearably long, children sweated alongside adults in factories and wages were just above that of a slave, I think unions served a valuable purpose.
Workers initially banded together to fight for their safety, their rights and their basic dignity as human beings. As a result, things got a lot better for the American worker and his or her family.
But over the years as unions got stronger and more influential, they were corrupted by power, greed and politics.
Today, I see unions as a hindrance, not a helper, to workers who wish to be industrious, efficient and innovative.
‘Most collective bargaining agreements specify seniority-based promotions and raises that ignore individual effort,? wrote James Sherk, a Bradley Fellow in Labor Policy at The Heritage Foundation. ‘Federal law prohibits employers from paying individual workers more than their union contracts provide. This restriction holds high-performing employees back. No matter how hard they work, union members cannot earn more than their unions have negotiated for them.?
To me, unions are the antithesis of a meritocracy ? a system where one is rewarded based on ability, achievement and hard work ? which is what this country was supposed to be.
That being said, I don’t think it’s a very good idea for the 12 full-time members (excluding the chief) of the Oxford Fire Department to unionize (see story on page 1).
Setting aside my own personal distaste for and distrust of unions, I think the timing of this is going to end up hurting not only the fire department, but the community as a whole.
Both the department’s operational and ALS millages expire with the collection of the winter 2009 tax bill.
The department’s expected to ask voters to renew its millages either later this year or early next year.
The union issue could cause problems at the ballot box given this area’s political orientation.
Oxford, with a few vocal exceptions, is still by and large a conservative Republican community. Despite the national trend, McCain beat Obama here 5,846 to 4,492.
And let’s not forget nobody around here even attempts to run for township board as a Democrat ? although some Democrats have hidden on the nonpartisan village council.
Republican areas aren’t typically pro-union and having a fire department that wants to unionize or is unionized could turn some voters off.
Given the troubled economy is probably going to cause a good number of voters to say ‘no? to everything put before them this year, do the firefighters really want to give people another reason to potentially reject their funding?
In the end, no millages mean no money for the fire department. No money means no firefighters.
I realize some firefighters may want the union because they feel it will give them some type of job security in these uncertain economic times.
That’s probably true for those with coveted seniority ? a term that doesn’t mean you’re good at your job, it just means you’ve been there a long time and managed to not get fired.
But unionization doesn’t protect everyone from layoffs. Usually, the last to be hired are the first to be fired, no matter how qualified they are or good at their jobs they’ve become.
From the Big Three to MSP Industries in Oxford to public employees in places like Detroit and Pontiac, when the money’s not there, people start getting laid off.
The unions haven’t been able to save them.
Let’s say Oxford’s full-time firefighters become unionized and force the township to negotiate a contract with them. Times are tough. You can almost bet the township will push very hard for lower wages and reduced benefits.
I would. As an elected official, your main duty is to the taxpayers, not public employees.
The firefighters could conceivably end up with less than they have right now without a union contract.
Of course, with unions, come attorneys and with attorneys, come bills. The township will either use its current attorney or hire a labor attorney to deal with union-related issues. Either way, you can bet the money for those legal bills will come out of the fire department’s budget, meaning less money for services, which hurts the community.
Taxpayers want services, not more legal bills.
And finally, we come to the subject of union dues, which is basically the equivalent of adding yet another tax to your paycheck.
Ask yourself, would you rather keep your money and spend it on yourself and your family or give it to a union?
In the end, it’s up to the 12 full-time firefighters to decide whether or not to organize because that’s their right.
I do believe the firefighters should vote on this, so I urge the township board to decide against voluntary recognition of the union based on some petition.
Let the firefighters vote via secret ballot. That’s the democratic thing to do. That’s the right thing to do.
I also believe if there’s going to be a union it should include paid-on-call firefighters, the backbone of the OXFD.
Granted, for them, the job isn’t their livelihood and they receive no fringe benefits, but they do share the same working conditions and responsibilities as the full-timers and must undergo the same training.
To create a division between the two groups is wrong.
When firefighters courageously rush into a burning house, the flames don’t discriminate between full-time and paid-on-call personnel. Why should we?

One of the quickest ways to send government officials, union employees and unrepentant liberals into a full-blown, mouth-foaming frenzy of hysterical rage is to mention the P-word.
Of course, the word I’m referring to is privatization. I’ve always been a staunch proponent of privatizing government services whenever possible.
If a private company can provide the same level of service currently being handled by public employees, but at a lower price, I say go for it.
When you factor in retirement, health insurance and other benefits, government employees cost taxpayers tons of money while they’re working and continue to do so long after they’ve retired.
And with things like seniority and unions, they’re often difficult, sometimes impossible, to get rid of.
Yes, I feel bad for the public employees who lose their jobs when government services are privatized. Contrary to popular belief, I am a human being.
But the function of government is not to provide employment opportunities for people or take care of their families or ensure pensions for people’s Golden Years. Government is not an employment agency.
Government’s here to provide certain services to the taxpayers ? the level of which is debatable ? and do so in the most cost-effective and efficient manner possible.
An elected official’s first and foremost responsibility is to the taxpayers he or she represents, not to folks employed by the government.
I was quite proud of the Oxford Village Council for its decision Tuesday night to privatize the operation of its new water treatment plant at a cost of $50,400 per year.
It’s absolutely ridiculous that the village was employing two people on a full-time basis at an annual cost of approximately $140,000, which includes wages and benefits, to run the old water treatment plant.
That’s not only insane, it’s borderline criminal.
I sincerely doubt there was enough to do at the old plant for one person to work full-time, let alone two. And with the new plant’s state-of-the-art technology, I’m sure that statement’s even more true.
But wait, I hear a liberal dinosaur crying out from the tar pits of history, ‘Don’t do it! You’ll lose control with privatization! You’ll have no direct oversight!?
What a load of hogwash.
If you don’t like the job a private firm’s doing, you tell them what’s wrong. If they don’t correct the problem, you fire them and hire someone else. If you think you can get a better deal elsewhere, you take it.
Unlike government, private companies need to turn a profit to stay in business, so they’ll do almost anything to keep their customers satisfied.
When you’re paying the bill, you’re the boss.
There’s your control, Mr. Liberosaurus.
I’m loathe to admit it, but I’m actually feeling pretty good about my local governments these days.
The village is cutting taxes ? yes, the one-mill cut was approved Tuesday night ? and privatizing services.
The township’s considering cutting its sewer rates.
If this keeps up, I’ll have nothing to write about in my columns. Wouldn’t that be nice?

‘The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.?
? Former U.S. President Ronald Reagan

I find it amusing that our local government leaders gather twice a month at the school district’s central office to scarf down a free breakfast and, among other things, attempt to figure out how to retain and attract businesses in these tough economic times.
I find it amusing because the best thing government at every level can do to spur economic growth is something it’s never been very good at ? getting out of the way.
You guys really want to help businesses thrive? First, cut taxes, then cut the amount of red-tape entrepreneurs are forced to wade through. Finally, stop trying to regulate every little thing to death.
What most public officials fail to realize is that government is at its very best when it just leaves people alone and lets them keep their money.
Last week, the Oxford Village Council did more to help the local economy than this leadership group because it reduced property taxes by one full mill.
This council was able to cut taxes because previous councils had, for years, greedily stockpiled cash reserves well beyond what’s needed or recommended by auditors. There’s a fine line between fiscal responsibility and arrogant hoarding of taxpayer money.
Council’s tax cut means existing local businesses will get to keep more of the money they work so hard to earn and use those dollars as they see fit.
A 1-mill tax cut will save Red Knapp’s American Grill $279, while the Oxford 7 Theater will pay $820 less. Curves, the gym for ladies, will see its village tax bill decrease by $197 while Mark A. Young Jewelers will save $122.
And it’s not just downtown businesses that benefit.
Over on S. Glaspie Street, the village’s industrial area,, Royal Oak Boring will save $2,960, Acorn Stamping will hang on to $1,103 and Vaughn Custom Sports will give $889 less to the local taxman.
With everything else constantly going up ? health insurance, utilities, fuel, supplies, etc. ? I’m sure all of these businesses greatly appreciate having at least one part of their overhead (taxes) go down.
It’s also good for prospective new businesses to see Oxford has at least one government that’s willing cut taxes, instead of constantly having its sweaty palm out asking for more, more, more.
If I was trying to decide where to open a business, I’d definitely favor the place that lightened the tax burden.
All those government-types and Realtors who want to see Oxford’s real estate market improve should view the village’s tax cut as great news because lower property taxes make homes easier to sell.
It’s true prospective home-buyers look at things like schools and parks, but they also look at taxes.
Excessive property taxes are a big turnoff to most people ? except backward liberals who get physically excited about the prospect of giving the government more money.
There you have it, less government and less taxes are better for businesses, better for residents, better for everyone. And I figured that out without free bacon and eggs.

I hate to use a tired, old catch-phrase that’s been relentlessly beaten into the ground by people with limited ways to express themselves, but I urge the Oxford Board of Education to ‘think outside the box? when it comes to selecting a replacement for Trustee Sue Tombrella, who’s resigning June 13 (see story on page 1).
I realize there’s probably already some behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing going on to select a new board member.
That’s politics as usual.
I’m sure the plan is to recruit someone from the Strategic Planning or Steering committees ? those folks who came up with the 11-goal vision for the future and the failed $70 million bond proposal ? and anoint them as the next school board member.
Sitting boards usually look for like-minded people who are already ‘on-board? with the program.
Like Star Trek’s ‘The Borg? ? a fictional race of cybernetic drones who think with a hive-like mentality ? most school boards crave unanimity in their decisions.
Dissent is not seen as a good thing. You can’t be ‘world-class? if everybody doesn’t agree on everything.
But I think when you have a school board like ours, one that is so eager to do whatever the superintendent wants, one that praises him endlessly and seems to live to please him, you need a counterbalance.
I’m reminded once again of what former Oxford Schools Trustee Major Murray told me in an interview following his June 2008 resignation from the board ? ‘The administration is setting the agenda and the board is acquiescing. I saw the board reverse itself on two items within a year just because one superintendent put it one way and then another superintendent put it another way.?
Murray told me then he believes the superintendent needs a ‘strong counterweight? because ‘the goodness of his goals? should not negate the need for real discussion and debate before plans are implemented.
Unfortunately, the school board was not providing ‘an effective counterweight? in Murray’s opinion.
To help provide what the school board so desperately needs, I urge officials to appoint someone who’s not ‘on-board? with everything the district’s doing.
Select a parent who’s opposed to unrestricted, take-anybody-from-anywhere Schools of Choice. They aren’t too hard to find these days ? just ask Mike Neff.
Select a district taxpayer who voted against the bond issue ? there are 2,191 of them out there.
Select someone who doesn’t believe the absurd notion that academics and athletics are equal.
Select someone who’s unafraid to swim against the tide. Someone who doesn’t mind being the odd-man out because they don’t have a manic need to be one of the gang.
Select the person who says the things you disagree with, the things you don’t want to hear.
The school board needs a dissenting voice to bring some diversity of opinion and some balance ? or at least the appearance of some balance to make it look good.
Our board needs a gadfly, as Socrates put it in Plato’s Apology, ‘to sting people and whip them into a fury, all in the service of truth.?
Socrates was the gadfly of ancient Athens and ultimately, the shortsighted Greeks put him to death because he dared to consistently challenge the powers that be and in doing so, irritated those in charge.
Socrates warned the Athenians that the cost of silencing dissent is very high ? ‘If you kill a man like me, you will injure yourselves more than you will injure me.?

‘Government does not have an unlimited claim on the earnings of individuals.? ? Barry Goldwater

I was extremely pleased to learn the Oxford Village Council is contemplating lowering the current 11.12-mill tax rate by at least a half-mill (see page 1).
The only thing that could make me happier is if council decided to shoot the works and make it a full mill.
I got giddy just writing that.
Could be the Scotch.
Lord knows the village has enough in its overloaded reserves to cover a tax cut right now.
Contrary to popular belief, excessive fund balances and overly-healthy reserves are not the signs of a fiscally responsible government.
They’re the signs of a greedy government that’s been consistently overtaxing people and sitting on their money.
Maybe I’m old-fashioned, but I’d rather have that extra money sitting in my account over at Oxford Bank accruing interest or buying things for my family like groceries.
I say kudos to Councilman Tony Albensi for leading the charge to cut village taxes, which have always been much, much too high.
I think I can safely add him to my list of local public officials who do not make me want to erect a guillotine in Centennial Park ? it’s a very short list.
Cutting taxes should always, always be a public official’s first priority, especially in difficult economic times such as these when more and more people are pinching their pennies just to scrape by.
Unfortunately, the first instinct of most out-of-touch officials is to protect existing budgets, then expand the Empire by inaugurating new programs and constructing shiny new monuments to their egos.
We must remember that on its own, government has no money. It only has the dollars and cents it confiscates from you and me.
Government is the ultimate parasite.
It cannot survive and grow on its own. It must have a healthy host to feed on (i.e. taxpayers).
Over the years, swinish public officials have brainwashed many people into believing that we should just hand over our money and not ask too many questions because after all, they’re the experts and they know what’s best for us common folk.
It’s by no means a new phenomena.
Former Arizona Senator and Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater wrote about it in his landmark 1960 book ‘The Conscience of a Conservative.?
‘The American taxpayer, I think, has lost confidence in his claim to his money,? he wrote. ‘He has been handicapped in resisting high taxes by the feeling that he is, in the nature of things, obliged to accommodate whatever need for his wealth government chooses to assert.?
Well, on Tuesday, May 12 at 7 p.m., village taxpayers will have an opportunity to assert their right to speak up and lay claim to what’s rightfully theirs.
Tell the village council you want your half-mill.
Heck, tell them you want a full mill.
It’s your money. You have a right to demand it back.
Special Note: Many thanks to all the people who’ve congratulated me ? in person, over the phone or via greeting cards ? on my awards from the Detroit SPJ.

As I covered the TEA Party in front of the Oxford Village offices last week, I felt something I hadn’t in a long, long time ? hope.
Specifically, the hope that maybe we can take back our government from career politicians, entrenched bureaucrats and administrators, special interests and vested interests.
The people who were out there on W. Burdick St. protesting the never-ending growth of government and excessive taxes were not right wing fanatics as the mainstream Media and their Leftist cohorts would have you believe.
They were decent, hard-working Americans who are fed up and fearful about the future.
When I interviewed these people about the reasons why each of them was there, their words weren’t radical and dangerous as those fear mongers at the Department of Homeland Security would have us believe.
Their words were were genuine and thoughtful.
They don’t want to lose their cherished freedoms to Big Government.
They don’t wish to burden their children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren with more crippling government debt. They want to keep more of what they work so hard to earn everyday.
They don’t want to see the U.S. abandon private enterprise in favor of socialist control. They don’t want their tax money wasted on pork-filled stimulus packages.
They want the people they elected to public office to listen to them, care about them and truly represent them.
If those ideas are extreme, if those ideas are viewed as the words of domestic terrorists, then I know a lot of average men and women who could now be classified as ‘Enemies of the State? and shipped off to camps.
I sincerely hope these TEA Parties will become the beginning of a grassroots movement ? maybe even a third party ? to take our government back and return to the principles of low taxation, individual liberty and strict adherence to the Constitution.
Revolution is in the air.
And when I say revolution, I don’t mean one like the French Jacobins had in 1789 or the Russian Bolsheviks in 1917. Those were revolutions designed to smash tradition and reshape society according to twisted ideologies.
I mean a revolution such as the one the United States was born from in the late 18th century.
Our revolution was really a war for independence.
It was a battle to recover the rights and liberties the colonists had lost as free Englishmen when King George III and Parliament started treating them like cash cows to be milked through excessive taxation.
But unlike the first American Revolution, this one will not be fought with muskets and cannons.
This battle will be waged non-violently with ballots, protests and encouraging honorable, liberty-loving people to run for office at every level of government.
As Benjamin Franklin said, ‘We must all hang together, or most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.?
SPECIAL NOTE: Once again, thank you to my lovely wife, Connie, for always being there for me. It’s her support that enabled me to win those six SPJ awards.

It’s no secret that most real journalists view Public Relations/Marketing as the ‘Dark Side of the Force.?
You can almost hear Master Yoda warning us in his raspy voice ? ‘Spin. Press releases. Deflecting questions. These are the Dark Side. Once you start down the Dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny . . .?
Granted, the Dark Side pays extremely well and has one heck of a benefits package. But I suppose if you’re going to forfeit your soul, you might as well be well-compensated.
I’m ranting about PR folks this week because of my experiences last week writing a story about the infomercial Oxford Schools paid $25,000 for.
In case you’re interested, the infomercial ? dubbed ‘The Best Schools in Michigan? ? airs at 8:30 p.m. Thursday, April 2 on WXYZ-TV Channel 7.
I sure hope it doesn’t get creamed in the ratings going up against powerhouse ‘Survivor? at 8 p.m. on CBS.
When I received the press release about Oxford’s primetime television debut, no mention was made that it was as part of an infomercial or that the school district had shelled out $25,000 for the exposure.
At first glance, it appeared as though the school district had been chosen to be featured as part a legitimate television program profiling Michigan’s leading school districts. The press release made it sound like some type of honor was being bestowed upon the district.
But there was a sentence in there peppered with marketing lingo that made me think this was in fact an infomercial. It read, ‘The program was strategically positioned to air just before ABC television’s highly-rated ‘Grey’s Anatomy? which usually draws more than 400,000 viewers in the Detroit area.?
I made a few phone calls and discovered this TV program was really a vehicle for a Southfield-based marketing and advertising agency. The executive I interviewed tried to paint this as an altruistic attempt to put some positive news about Michigan schools on TV and get the word out. When I asked this person if Oxford had to pay anything given the program is commercial-free, the response was ‘the schools kicked in a little.?
When I asked this person for a specific amount, the response was ‘It really didn’t even cover my costs from our side of the table. It’s not a significant amount.?
When I again asked for a dollar figure, the response was ‘They didn’t pay to participate in this in any stretch of the imagination . . . This is not one of those kinds of programs.?
When I called the school district, they freely admitted they paid $25,000 for the ‘ad? and the superintendent told me ‘it’s all part of our marketing plan.?
At least the district was honest with me about what this program is and how much they paid for it. Although the district wasn’t very honest with its principals, teachers, students and parents because I talked some of them who had no idea the filming was done as part of an ad. They thought the district was being honored.
The marketing executive I interviewed told me this program is ‘not a pay-for-play kind of a thing.?
It’s true the marketing/ad agency contacted Oxford Schools because they heard good things about the district and were impressed with the Chinese, violins, etc., but I can’t help but wonder if the Wildcats would still be appearing right before ‘Dr. McDreamy? if they hadn’t coughed up the $25,000? Me thinks not.
Lesson for the kids ? if you want to be considered the ‘best? in life, make sure you can afford to buy the title.
It’s kind of like buying a bunch of sports trophies at a garage sale, displaying them in your living room and telling people you’re a champion athlete.
I guess when you want to appear ‘world class,? image is everything and it’s pretty darn expensive, too.

Being anti-tax is as American as baseball, apple pie and hating the swine that infest our Congress.
A major reason our forefathers went to war with England was because they didn’t want to keep paying high taxes, unreasonable taxes, overburdening taxes to the Crown.
‘No taxation without representation? was their battle cry.
Two hundred years, later we’ve got the representation, but the taxation’s still out of control because our representatives love to spend, spend, spend.
Beware of ‘visionaries? and ‘dreamers? with dollar signs in their eyes and their sticky fingers in our pockets.
Most Americans these days seem to accept taxes as a necessary evil.
The difference is some of us lean more toward the necessary while others lean more toward the evil part. In case you hadn’t noticed, I fall into the latter category.
Everyday the Caesars at the federal, state and local levels sit around and think up new and creative ways to tax every single aspect of our lives.
And for the most part, they get away with it because people are beaten down. We don’t feel confident that our money is really our own anymore because so much of it gets taken away willy-nilly by government folks who make their living off of our sweat.
Nobody wants to fight City Hall these days much less take on the all-powerful Internal Revenue Service.
Where has the Spirit of ?76 gone? Where has the boldness and defiance that led colonists to dump tea in Boston Harbor gone? Where is the will to fight?
I say we need to revitalize that spirit of rebellion. I say a little revolution is a healthy thing.
I say we need another tea party.
Fortunately, there are already some folks organizing tax protests in communities around the United States and I think we should have one here in Oxford, too.
According to the American Family Association, there are currently people in 1,000 cities organizing TEA Party Day rallies scheduled for 12 noon Wednesday, April 15 ? the deadline for giving our pound of flesh to the IRS.
TEA stands for Taxed Enough Already and that’s exactly what we are. Right now, more people are needed to organize TEA Party Day rallies in their communities. The goal is at least 1,500 rallies nationwide.
These anti-tax rallies are supposed to be held in front of each community’s city hall.
Here in Oxford, we could have three ? one in front of the village offices, one outside the township hall and one in front of the school district’s offices.
I know that’s pretty ambitious, so I’d settle for just one rally with a huge turnout.
Anyone who’s interested in organizing a TEA Party Rally in Oxford should visit www.teapartyday.com.
If some brave soul steps forward to organize one, I’ll promote it with a story in the Leader beforehand and cover it.
Sounds like a great back page to me. Let’s give the cute kids a week off and have a photo page full of angry taxpayers venting their frustration. You bring the hotdogs, I’ll bring the pitchforks and torches.

‘For what is a man, what has he got?
If not himself, then he has naught.
To say the things he truly feels;
And not the words of one who kneels.?
? ‘My Way? as sung by Frank Sinatra

Americans are by nature rebels.
Our country was founded by men who stood up for what they believed in, risking their lives and the lives of their families, to throw off the yoke of tyranny imposed by what was at the time the mightiest empire in the world.
We didn’t politely ask the British to tea and beg them to leave us alone, we grabbed our muskets from above our fireplaces and started shooting Red Coats because they were here to rob us of our liberty and our property.
Americans love to not only question, but challenge authority because we know the dangers of what happens when power is unchecked and those who hold power feel comfortable and safe from criticism.
Americans don’t worry about whether their opinions are ‘politically correct? or if they’re contributing to a ‘positive environment? or if every word they’re uttering feels like a warm, fuzzy hug.
They speak their minds honestly, from the heart and with conviction. When people do that, things are bound to get messy and that’s okay. Messy is good. It means people are thinking and not everybody’s ‘on board.?
Americans are passionate about their opinions because what good is life without passion? We’re not cold, analytical robots spouting data, we’re flesh and blood.
Americans speak their minds in plain English.
Sometimes that language is very strong and biting because it has to be when the stakes are high and the threat is real. That’s part of the reason we’ve never been enslaved by ideological or religious zealots who seek to impose their twisted views on us.
It infuriates me when people in positions of power try to stifle dissenting voices. In the old days, it was done with an iron boot, but these days, more and more it’s done with a velvet glove behind closed doors.
From the offices of government to the executive suites of Corporate America to the universities dominated by elitist professors, we all hear buzzwords like ‘openness? and ‘inclusion? and ‘diversity.?
But they only apply to those who are willing to toe the party line or who meekly restrict their opposition to the confines of a predetermined acceptable level of debate as dictated by the Powers that be.
Those of us who don’t wish to find our assigned seat on the bus or even refuse to get on the bus because frankly we have serious doubts about the driver and his or her direction, we get run over by the bus and left for dead in the middle of the road.
Personally, I prefer to challenge authority, especially when I believe what’s happening is wrong and when I believe people ? those average citizens who get up everyday, go to work and pay their bills ? are being lied to, cheated, hurt or bullied by those in positions of power.
When I believe something or someone is wrong, I don’t back down. I won’t back down. My mind, body and spirit cannot do it. I’ll fight to the bitter end for what’s right.
I think journalist Dr. Hunter S. Thompson put it best when he wrote, ‘The man who hungers for truth should expect no mercy and give none.? Amen.

We’ve got a lot of big dreamers in government.
Every time they see an empty building or a vacant piece of land, they automatically start dreaming about turning it into things like youth centers, senior centers, parks, baseball diamonds, basketball courts, etc.
But we often forget that every piece of property government purchases or has donated to it, means less property on the tax rolls because government-owned land is exempt from the taxman’s ax.
Less property on the tax rolls means either more taxes or less services for the rest of us who have to make up the difference. It also means more land for government to spend more money on maintaining.
I wasn’t thrilled when I reported a few weeks ago about Oxford Twp. Parks and Rec. Director Ron Davis? ‘wish? to obtain federal stimulus money to purchase the Oxford Hills golf course (should it ever be put up for sale) and turn it into a municipal course.
Government-ownership of Oxford Hills would deprive local governments and the school district of nearly $50,000 in annual tax revenue. That’s a mighty big hole to plug, especially during these times of declining property values and shrinking tax revenues.
Despite what the big dreamers think, government’s job is not to play Caddyshack and compete with private businesses like Boulder Pointe and Copper Hills.
Compete isn’t even the right word because when government goes against private business it does so on an uneven playing field.
Government golf courses can offer lower rates than private courses because they don’t pay property taxes and there’s no market-driven need to turn a profit.
No one loses a home or can’t send their kids to college if a government course doesn’t make money.
When a government venture loses money, it just supplements its failure with taxpayer dollars. Unlike customers, taxpayers don’t have a choice in the matter.
Government shouldn’t be in the golf business, period.
Especially in an area like this where the private sector meets the demand so well. We have six public courses and three private ones in the area encompassing Oxford, Addison, Orion and Metamora townships.
As for the argument that it’s always good to pick up open space whenever you can, we’ve already got about 500 acres of existing park land in Oxford Township, not including Scripter and Centennial parks in the village or the Polly Ann Trail. Exactly how much more do we need?
Let’s concentrate on maintaining and improving what we have, which is considerable, instead of always looking to expand the mighty Empire.
I know it’s hard for government-types to resist the ‘more, more, more? urge. That’s why we the people are here to keep them in check.
Too often, the big dreams of government officials turn into fiscal nightmares for taxpayers.
Unfortunately, the lust for more land is not just limited to visions of municipal golf courses.
In the 10 years I’ve been here, Oxford’s governments have a history of buying land and just letting it sit there.
Back in early 2006, the village wasted $700,000 to buy a piece of industrial property located at 98 S. Glaspie St.
Since then, the village has stored road salt there, leased it for boat storage in the winter, used it for parking during Hot Blues and BBQ and erected temporary skate park ramps during the summer.
Not really the best uses for 3.42 acres that could and should have been left in private hands so it could continue generating tax dollars.
Three years later, the village still has no definite plans for the property or the rundown building that sits on it.
Then there’s the DDA with its three parcels along E. Burdick St. Purchased in 2001-02 for a total of $585,000, the back halves were split off to add parking to the southeast quadrant.
The front halves, currently listed for $100,000 each, remain vacant and government-owned to this day, generating zero tax revenue for either the village or DDA.
At least if they were being used for parking, they’d be serving some public purpose, but they’re not.
They’re just sitting there as visible reminders of government’s incompetence and waste at our expense.
Local government operates best when it sticks to basic functions ? roads, police, fire, water, sewer, elections, dog licenses, etc. It’s when local officials decide to become Land Barons and Country Club owners that we get into trouble.

There’s something rotten in the township of Addison.
It’s been three weeks and Fire Chief George Spencer is still not back to work. He’s not been arrested. He’s not been charged with any crimes. He’s not been suspended ? at least not officially. He’s just stuck in political limbo.
Spencer’s still being paid to sit in his Oxford home because of an incident that, based on what I know, doesn’t appear to be criminal in nature, but for some reason township Supervisor Bruce Pearson decided to call in the Oakland County Sheriff’s Department to investigate.
Pearson said there’s more to the story than Spencer’s indicated, but remains tight-lipped when it comes to divulging any specific details.
Spencer, on the other hand, has been very forthcoming about telling his side of the story. When I interviewed him at his home Feb. 3, he didn’t strike me as hiding anything.
According to the chief, back in December, he gave an employee a $183.60 pay advance, so the firefighter’s kids wouldn’t have to go without Christmas presents. A kind gesture to be sure. Afterward, the firefighter worked the 20 hours for which he had been advanced the wages.
It doesn’t appear to me there was any theft or fraud involving township funds. It doesn’t appear there was any criminal intent here. Nobody’s sitting on a South American beach counting stacks of money right now.
The only thing Spencer appears to be guilty of is taking an action for which there’s no established township policy outlining a procedure. Anywhere else he probably would have received a warning or a reprimand or maybe even a short suspension.
Oh I forgot, Spencer’s also guilty of something else ? compassion. How dare he help out a fellow human being in need. How dare he show some kindness and generosity of spirit at Christmas time. He should be horsewhipped!
Apparently in Addison, Spencer’s mistake ? if you even want to call it that ? merits a full-scale sheriff’s investigation, a three-week-and-counting paid suspension, I mean vacation, and cryptic statements from the township supervisor, all of which only serves to damage the chief’s reputation, drag the fire department through the mud and add fuel to the local rumor-mill.
This is absolutely ridiculous. The township should put Spencer back to work, instead of wasting money by paying him to sit home on his duff, while rumors swirl.
This is no way to treat a consummate professional who’s dedicated nearly 11 years of his life to improving a local service that saves lives and property on a regular basis.
During his interview with me, Spencer made it clear he’s been looking for a new job elsewhere since April 2008. Wonder if that has anything to do with all this mess?
Wonder if somebody wants to get rid of the chief early and is trying to get the sheriff and prosecutor’s offices to do their dirty work for them? Wonder if somebody wants the job or has an ax to grind? Who knows?
If you ask me, this whole thing smacks of local politics run amok. There’s definitely more here than meets the eye.
One has to wonder if the situation has anything to do with the fact that Spencer’s never really been a big fan of Oakland County dispatch. At times, he’s even dared to be critical of the service and we all know Pearson is a retired sheriff’s deputy. I’m not making an accusations, but it does make an inquisitive mind like mine wonder.
Unfortunately, I’m only able to speculate on this subject like everyone else. But people shouldn’t have to speculate about what’s going on in a government that’s supposed to be of them, by them and for them.
Our government should be an open book. When the people want answers, they should get them.

I have a little bit of a problem with the pro-school bond guest opinion penned last week by Oxford Village Manager Joe Young.
Even though I vehemently disagree with Young’s opinion, I’ve got no problem with him expressing it in print.
Every citizen has a right to express ? or not express ? how they plan to vote on election day and why.
What I do have a big problem with is a public official who doesn’t really pay his fair share of local property taxes urging everyone to vote ‘yes? on a tax increase.
You see, Young lives in the Lake Villa Manufactured Home Community off Lakeville Rd. in Oxford Township.
For those of you not familiar with this, allow me to explain. Mobile (or manufactured) homes located in licensed parks are exempt from property taxes.
As such, individual mobile home owners do not pay things like the 6-mill State Education Tax, Oxford’s 7-mill school bond debt tax or any other local millages.
Instead they pay a $3 per month fee.
Since the 1950s, mobile homes have been assessed $36 a year by the state. It doesn’t matter if the unit is worth $12,000 or $60,000, each one still pays only $36.
Of this paltry sum, $24 goes to Lansing for schools, $6 to the local municipality (in this case the township) and $6 to the county.
Owners of mobile home parks pay local property taxes because they own the land.
But the land’s value is based on the rental income paid for park spaces and infrastructure improvements ? like utilities, roads and water/sewer hookups ? not on the mobile homes themselves.
It’s true park owners pass along their costs to tenants in the form of their rent, but the park property isn’t taxed anywhere near what it would be if it were counted as having stick-built houses on it.
‘Because the addition of a mobile home park significantly increases demand for services and infrastructure such as school buildings, many local officials and residents feel that park owners are not contributing their fair share,? according to a May 2003 report prepared by the Michigan Department of Treasury.
There’s your tax lesson for today, boys and girls.
Now back to Mr. Young . . .
I really resent Mr. Young telling everyone in Oxford to vote yes on the school’s $70.135 million bond proposal (which he, like all the pro-bond folks, forgot to mention includes $158.2 million in projected interest) when he doesn’t even pay the 7 mills he believes the rest of us should keep shelling out until 2041.
It’s bad enough I have to put up with the fact that my village manager lives in the unincorporated township, so he doesn’t pay one penny of the 11.12 mills I pay as a village resident, but now he wants the rest of us to add 10 more years to a school tax, which he also does not pay.
It shouldn’t surprise me. Like most folks who have spent their lives working (for lack of a better word) in government, Young’s a big shooter when it comes to spending other people’s money.
‘No taxation without representation? was one of the famous slogans that helped unite the 13 colonies and ignite America’s War of Independence.
Two hundred years later, I have a public official who earns nearly $80,000 per year of my tax money and basically gets ‘representation without taxation.?
Frankly, the whole thing disgusts me.
Maybe I should just relax and join the pro-bond herd.
But I won’t. I’m not in to being a blind follower, marching to the beat of the Professor Harold Hills of the world.
So I’ll just suggest Mr. Young confine himself to overseeing village matters and open his mouth only when he decides to open his wallet like the rest of us.

In response to Mr. Terry’s letter (see the Letters to the Editor page), the main reason I’m voting against the Oxford school district’s bond proposal is because I don’t like the idea of taxpayers taking on another $70 million in debt coupled with an additional 10 years worth of taxes.
The idea of extending a public debt to the year 2041 makes me physically ill. The idea of passing taxes onto our kids and our kids? kids isn’t something to be cheered.
Given our current economic circumstances and how we got here, we all should be acutely aware of why incurring more and more debt is a bad thing.
Although the principal on this bond proposal is $70.135 million, do you know what the projected interest will be over a 32-year period? How does $158.2 million grab you?
That’s right, the total estimated interest for this bond proposal is more than double the principal,according to the bond application the school district submitted to the state Treasury Department.
Funny, I don’t see that $158.2 million number anywhere on the pro-bond website. Guess we don’t want to confuse people with too many big numbers.
And let’s not forget the $90.145 million the school district currently owes plus $46.2 million in interest.
So, if my math is right and voters foolishly approve this bond proposal, the taxpayers will be on the hook for a total of $364.7 million until 2041 assuming the district doesn’t ask for any more bonds over the next 32 years. Fat chance.
Although I wish bond proposals came with a line-item veto, I have absolutely no problem voting against this financial monstrosity because there are elements I don’t like.
And yes, my opposition is based on more than just the installation of dedicated music and art rooms at four elementary schools.
I also, as I’ve stated before, don’t believe Leonard Elementary needs a brand new gymnasium.
I don’t believe the high school needs its own tennis courts because we’re the only Class I school district without a tennis team. Amazingly, we already have tennis courts at Seymour Lake Park. They just need to be fixed up and maintained.
I won’t lose any sleep at night if the transportation building doesn’t get remodeled.
I don’t pay my school taxes for ‘expanded Parks and Recreation programs.? Ron Davis and his department have their own separate, voter-approved millage to spend as they see fit. I don’t feel like giving parks and rec. a back-door millage increase through my school taxes.
I don’t believe Leonard Elementary needs to install a recreational walking path around the school. I believe the 14.2-mile Polly Ann Trail is right by there.
I think the high school can continue to live without a new fieldhouse for the football stadium. Wouldn’t it be nice if the athletic boosters could start a private fund-raising campaign to build it?
While moving the fifth-graders over to Oxford Middle School would admittedly free up needed capacity at the elementary schools, I don’t believe it’s necessary to create the redundancies of turning the building into two separate schools, isolating grades 5/6 from grades 7/8.
To me constructing two new main offices and two separate entrances for one building is a complete waste of money.
And I don’t think we need to build a another gym and another cafeteria just for grades 5/6. After all, a few short years ago the middle school was the high school, which housed grades 9-12 with only one gym and one cafeteria.
I also don’t think it would be the end of the world if grades five through eight mixed freely in one building.
A June 2007 article published on the Education News Colorado website talked about how in public schools that house grades K-8 under one roof, students have higher self-esteem, better attendance, stronger bonds with teachers, fewer discipline problems and better test scores than in traditional middle schools.
Keith Look, a researcher with the Philadelphia Education Fund, advocated K-8 public schools and he didn’t seem too concerned about mixing lower and higher grades.
One of the things Look experienced was that ‘Middle grades students in a K-8 school behave differently than in a middle school. They take on the role of protector and role model (for younger students) as opposed to having to establish new reputations upon entering a middle school.?
The K-8 concept sure seems to work great at Kingsbury Country Day School in Addison Township and at parochial schools like St. Joseph in Lake Orion.
So maybe allowing grades 5/6 to interact with grades 7/8 isn’t a bad thing that requires spending more tax dollars to keep them physically separated.
I agree with you, Mr. Terry, that ‘excellent schools? do ‘have a positive effect on home values.?
But you know what has a negative effect on people moving to your community? High taxes.
Wouldn’t it be nice to tell prospective home-buyers that the school’s 7-mill debt tax will start to decrease in 2024 and disappear in 2031 instead of voters just approved adding another 10 years of debt and taxes to your annual bill?
Finally, I wish to answer to Mr. Terry’s questions, ‘Do you trust the people elected to the school board? Do you trust the Superintendent of Schools? We voted them in and hired them after all. Didn’t we do so with the expectation that they have our children’s best interest at heart??
Putting aside my own responses to these questions, which would involve my using phrases like ‘childlike naivete? and ‘bobble-headed optimism? and ‘blind trust in government is how free citizens become penniless slaves,? I think I’ll defer to former school board member Major Murray, who resigned in June 2008.
At the time, Murray told this newspaper that in his opinion, a ‘majority? of the school board believes their ‘job is to approve what the administration does.?
‘The administration is setting the agenda and the board is acquiescing,? he said. ‘I saw the board reverse itself on two items within a year just because one superintendent put it one way and then another superintendent put it another way.?
Murray stated the superintendent needs a ‘strong counterweight? because ‘the goodness of his goals? should not negate the need for real discussion.
Unfortunately, Murray said the board is not providing ‘an effective counterweight? in terms of ‘deliberation.?
Instead of weighing the pros and cons of different options, Murray said the school board consistently defers to the administration and provides an ‘affirmation? of their plans.
For myself, deciding how to vote on this bond proposal should be more than a gut reaction like ‘I’m voting yes because it’s for the kids and we should give those smooth-talkin? folks who run the schools whatever they want.?
I still highly recommend voting NO.

In response to Mr. Terry’s letter this week (see the Letters to the Editor page this week), I’d just like to say I don’t have a problem with the technology portion of the proposed $70 million school bond. Technological skills are very much needed to compete in today’s and tomorrow’s world.
I don’t have an issue with adding more computers and fancy gadgets just like I don’t have a problem with the proposed security improvements or plans to make school buildings more energy efficient.
But there are things in the bond I definitely don’t care for such as constructing brand new, dedicated music and art rooms at Clear Lake, Oxford, Leonard and Lakeville elementaries. Or building a gym out in Leonard because right now they use the cafeteria for physical education classes.
No Mr. Terry, I really don’t have a problem with these programs meeting in rooms that pull ‘double-duty? such as ‘gymnasiums, cafeterias and cramped ‘unused? classrooms.? I think it’s very efficient and cost-effective to use a single space for multiple purposes.
When I was in elementary school, the gymnasium I exercised in doubled as the cafeteria I ate lunch in every day.
My elementary art classes were held in a science room and my elementary music classes were conducted on the stage of the school’s auditorium.
Between third and fifth-grade, I learned to play the violin through a school-sponsored program. You know where those lessons were held? In the school’s vestibule.
Amazingly, despite all this adversity I still managed to earn straight A’s and be accepted to the University of Michigan and Hillsdale College. I chose to attend the former.
I didn’t feel at all cheated or under-educated because the room I learned in was also used for other purposes.
Bottom line ? I think there are good things and unnecessary things in this bond proposal. Nothing’s perfect, even things formulated by committees. It reminds me of how Congress takes a good piece of legislation for something really important, then stuffs it with ‘pork.?
Frankly, I, as an Oxford school district taxpayer, am not willing to take on another $70 million in debt and extend my payments by 10 years, which most certainly is a tax increase.
Adding years is just as much of a tax increase as adding mills is. Paying longer is paying more. Anyone who tells you it’s not a tax increase is either uninformed or unethical.
Based on my home’s current taxable value, another 10 years of this bond millage will cost me an additional $3,780.
And I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m really not in the mood to vote yes on anything given my village home’s assessed value just decreased by $10,000, yet its taxable value increased by $2,300. Only government can force you pay more taxes on something that’s worth less.
I’m sorry we don’t agree Mr. Terry, but that’s what makes America great. We can disagree, state our opinions for all to see and hear, then go to the ballot box for a decision.
I’m not anti-progress, anti-growth or anti-schools as you suggest Mr. Terry. Ninety-percent of the stories and photos we publish in this newspaper about the schools are positive ? concerts, classroom activities, sporting events, plays, kids donating to local charities, academic success stories, teacher profiles, successful programs, extracurricular activities, etc.
I spend more time ? days, nights, weekends ? at the schools and covering school events than anywhere else.
And as I stated in last week’s column, myself and this newspaper have supported two yes-votes and two no-votes on school tax issues over the past 10 years.
It’s unfortunate that you’re automatically labeled a children-hating-ogre when you dare to speak up against the all-powerful ‘it’s for the kids? crowd, which can be quite intolerant when it comes to nonbelievers.
Sometimes I have to remind myself, I’m living in Oxford, not Stepford. Then again I have a feeling certain people would like to make this town more like the latter.

When I go to the polls Feb. 24, I’m planning to vote NO on the school’s $70.135 million bond proposal.
Bottom-line ? I’m not in favor of adding another $70 million to the taxpayer debt load and extending our payments by another 10 years (from 2031 to 2041).
I know, I know, it’s for the kids, so I shouldn’t be concerned about minor things like never-ending debt and taxing farther and farther into the future.
Make no mistake, just because the tax rate will remain at 7 mills doesn’t mean this is not a tax increase. Adding 10 more years of payments is mostly definitely a tax increase no matter how they try to spin it.
It’s also a tax increase because as it stands right now, the 7 mills we currently pay on the school debt will begin to decrease in 2024. But if this bond proposal passes, we won’t see a reduction until 2037.
Some people are probably looking at this bond proposal and thinking, ‘What’s the big deal? It’s not raising my taxes now and 2041’s a long way off, dude.?
I know it’s not hip or positive to worry about debt.
We all love the ‘buy now? part of a deal. It’s the ‘pay later? requirement that gets us into trouble and that’s the part that worries me because who knows when, or even if, this state’s going to make a comeback.
In the past 10 years, this newspaper and myself have supported a non-homestead millage increase and a $62 million bond for Oxford Schools. Both passed.
We also advocated the failure of two non-homestead millage increases. Both of them went down hard.
Unlike some people who blindly support the schools no matter what they want, no matter how much they ask for, I’m a little more discerning and right now, more debt and more taxes just doesn’t sound like a very good idea.
We spend billons upon billions on public education in this country, yet somehow it’s never enough.
The schools constantly have their hands out, demanding more, more, more! When is enough enough?
Yes, education is extremely important to the future of our nation in both the economic and political realms. Society needs educated workers, voters and leaders.
But does education’s importance mean we just write public schools a blank check and mindlessly vote ‘yes? every time they ask for more? I don’t think so.
Granted, there are some aspects of the bond proposal I like in terms of increased energy efficiency, security and effectively utilizing every inch of available space.
But overall, I really don’t believe Oxford students will lack the ability to compete globally if there’s no dedicated art and music classrooms in all the elementary schools and no tennis courts at the high school.
I don’t think building a brand new gymnasium at Leonard Elementary is a live-or-die situation either.
And frankly, I’m not sold on this whole conversion of the middle school into two separate schools for grades 5/6 and 7/8. We abandoned the junior high concept because years ago the education experts told us the middle school concept was much better. Now, we’re being told it’s more ‘age-appropriate? to group sixth-graders with fifth-graders and separate them from grades 7/8. Make up your mind.
So, I’m voting NO this time. I don’t know how many of you out there will join me. I guess it all depends on the number of folks who drank the Kool-Aid.
The pro-bond crowd’s done everything it can to discourage no-voters from scheduling a quiet election on Feb. 24 ? a date and time of year no one typically associates with voting ? to working hard at mobilizing both definite and potential yes-voters.
Preaching to the choir is a proven and effective way to get something passed in school elections.
But when we’re all footing the bill, the entire congregation should be in on the decision, not just the Pastor’s favorite songbirds. Or in this case, mynah birds.

Even though I haven’t had to write about it in quite a while, the issue of how to distribute assets once owned by the now-defunct Oxford Public Fire and EMS Commission (OPFEC) is still hanging out there with no resolution in sight.
In an attempt to settle this matter once and for, the Oxford Township Board and Oxford Village Council took the positive step of agreeing to meet face-to-face on Jan. 7.
I applaud both boards for their willingness to sit down and try to work things out without their respective attorneys in the room to stoke the fires of discontentment and fatten their wallets in the process.
For those new to the scene, there’s not enough room in this column to rehash the whole sorted, troubled, disturbed, dysfunctional, embarrassing and wasteful history of OPFEC and its messy dissolution.
In a nutshell, for many moons the village and township jointly owned and operated the fire department. Even after Pale Face Ex-Police Chief Gary Ford brought heap big trouble with him, the two tribes continued to run the department.
Over the years, the township eventually came to own about 82 percent of the department, so it sued for and won full ownership and control. The only question to be settled is how to distribute the dissolved OPFEC’s assets or compensate the village for its share of the department.
To me, that last item makes no sense at all because village residents, of which I am one, are township residents who are served faithfully and equally by the township-owned fire department. We’re all part of a 36-square-mile fire district.
Both village and township property owners pay 2.5 mills per year for fire and emergency medical services.
Both village and township property owners continue to shell out an annual millage to pay off the voter-approved bond issue from 2001 which allowed the department to build and equip two new stations and buy some new trucks.
Both village and township residents elected the seven township board members who oversee the fire department.
In essence, village and township residents are the ones who really own the fire department ? not the village council or the township board ? because we’re the shareholders.
Each and every resident is both an investor in this public agency and a customer of its services.
Call me crazy, but I can’t see why the township government would have to pay the village government for a portion of the fire department assets that WE ALL PAID FOR and continue to benefit from every day.
As long as village residents are being protected and served by the township fire department, I don’t see why the village government has to be compensated for anything.
The village government isn’t entitled to a nickel.
But if by some chance the township does end up having to pay the village a sum, every single penny should be rebated directly to village residents, not their government.
If you ask me, the quickest way to settle this whole OPFEC mess is to: 1) let the fire department continue doing its job and serving everybody equally; 2) let the village have the old broken-down fire hall; and 3) drop the rest of this superfluous bull before we waste any more tax money.
Let’s see some leadership in 2009, not more lawyer-ship.

You load 16 tons and what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt. Saint Peter, don’t you call me cause I can’t go. I owe my soul to the company store . . .
Real Americans love being in debt.
We’re a buy-now-worry-about-how-we’re-going-to-pay-for-it-later kind of a nation. Have been for a long time.
It’s our love of debt that helped precipitate the current mortgage crisis.
Banks and fly-by-night mortgage lenders were handing out loans faster than people could ask for them.
And lots of people didn’t worry about how they were ever going to pay off those interest-only mortgages when the principle came due because that’s a problem for the far-off future. We’re a here-and-now people.
Heck, the Chinese government (our buddies) loves our federal government’s willingness to put this country deeper and deeper in debt with its wild spending practices.
Back in September, China passed Japan to become the U.S. government’s largest foreign creditor and may, in fact, be the government’s largest creditor, period. China now owns nearly $1 out of every $10 in U.S. public debt.
The Boys in Beijing are licking their chops and eagerly awaiting the day they can foreclose on America.
The Evil Empire of the Far East will be able to take over without firing a single shot. I guess the Yuan (the Chinese unit of currency) is mightier than the sword.
Good thing our children are learning to speak Chinese now ? someday it will help them communicate with their new Masters and serve them well.
Here in Oxford, we’ve got some folks who are excited about the prospect of adding another $70 million to the school district’s debt load and burdening taxpayers with another 10 years worth of payments.
I was amazed when I sat down and figured out that if this bond proposal is approved in February, I’ll be 65 years old when it’s paid off in 2041.
I’ll most likely be a grandpa by then. Heck, I might even be a great grandpa. I can see me now sitting by my mailbox waiting for a Social Security check that will never come.
But what am I saying. The school district’s debt won’t be paid off in 2041 because that’s assuming they won’t ask for any more bonds between now and then.
And we all know that won’t happen.
It was only seven short years ago when the district got voters to approve its last bond issue for $62 million.
At that rate, we could easily squeeze in another four bond proposals by the time 2041 rolls around. I know, I know ? it’s all for the kids and I’m just being a mean ol? Grinch.
Maybe by 2041 we can finally build that state-of-the-art classroom aboard a space station or on the moon, so students can at long last conduct science experiments in a zero-gravity environment.
We cannot afford to lose such valuable educational opportunities, not in this global, potentially cosmic, marketplace full of shifting paradigms and under-utilized synergies just waiting to be co-mingled with challenging and diverse skill sets possessed by self-actualized learners.
Using fancy jargon is great. It makes you sound smart.
At least we won’t have to worry about our children learning the value of waiting and saving up for what they want in life. Not when our Civics 101 lesson for the kiddies is the value of never-ending, always-increasing government debt.
We wonder why children want everything now instead of later. We wonder why instant gratification is the norm. We wonder where that sense of entitlement comes from.
Look no further than the ‘it’s for the kids? crowd.

Knowing how to win and lose gracefully is important in life, particularly in the world of politics. I guess that’s one lesson former Addison Supervisor Bob Koski didn’t learn from his 16 years in office.
During the public comment portion of the township meeting last week, a bitter and dour Koski took center stage as he lashed out at newly-elected Supervisor Bruce Pearson.
I wasn’t at the meeting to witness this train-wreck firsthand, but I did watch the meeting DVD and I must say it was a truly pathetic display. No one can ever accuse Koski of taking the high road that’s for sure.
On the surface, it seemed like Koski was quite upset with Pearson for the way he supposedly handled firing the old deputy supervisor and hiring a new one. If you ask me, Koski was just looking for an excuse to attack Pearson and vent his frustration over his defeat at the ballot box, yet appear as though he’s gallantly defending his former deputy.
Despite Koski’s petty rantings, township deputies serve at the pleasure of their elected bosses. They are the ultimate at-will employees. Their fortunes rise and fall with the respective elected officials to which their wagons are hitched.
The supervisor, clerk and treasurer can appoint whomever they wish as their deputy and they don’t need board approval to do it. They can also terminate their deputies just as quickly, again without board approval.
After serving in township government for 16 years, you would think Koski would know that by now.
Despite Koski’s demand for the board to ‘censure? Pearson for his allegedly ‘unprofessional and unacceptable? actions and name an amendment to the employee manual after Pearson as a way to shame him, the new supervisor acted well within his rights and the law in appointing his new deputy and getting rid of the old one.
Although I feel bad the old deputy supervisor lost her job in these tough times, it would have been financially irresponsible for Pearson or the township to keep her on the payroll in another capacity just to ensure she still had a job.
Koski also assailed Pearson’s character accusing him over and over again of being a liar. ‘We must conclude that Pearson is a habitual liar,? Koski said. ‘The board should remember this in their dealings with him ? something they haven’t had to worry about for the last 16 years.?
Way to subtly pat yourself on the back, Mr. Koski. Let me be the second one to congratulate you.
I too believe the board never had to worry about lies under Koski’s administration because no one ever seemed to have a clue about what was going on in the supervisor’s office ? not even Koski himself.
How can you lie when you’re barely aware of what’s going on? I guess Koski equates ignorance with honesty.
It’s really a shame that Koski couldn’t just accept the will of the voters and gracefully ride off into the sunset.
His little diatribe before the township board reeked of sour grapes and was a public embarrassment.
It would have more honest, even mature, if Koski simply would have said something like this ? ‘You’ll all be sorry you didn’t re-elect me, you’ll see. That Bruce Pearson’s a big ol? meany-pants and it’s not fair people like him better than they like me. I’m going to hold my breath until you guys make me supervisor again . . .?
Koski’s little temper-tantrum just reaffirmed that the voters of Addison were right to elect new leadership.
My advice to Koski is to gently fade out of Addison politics with some dignity and class ? oops, too late.
Okay, Plan B ? apply to build a giant cell tower next to Leonard Elementary and . . . and . . . never mind.

Call me crazy, but I truly believe the best elections ? no matter what the outcome ? are ones with the highest voter-turnout.
In a free society such as ours, elections are supposed to represent the will of the majority expressed by votes of ‘yes? or ‘no? for everything from government officials to property taxes.
The more people who vote in elections, the better the chance the actual will of majority is being expressed and translated into action.
That being said, I’m not pleased that the Oxford school district is considering placing a $70 million bond proposal on the Feb. 24 ballot.
I’m not pleased because I don’t believe conducting an election in the dead of winter will yield a very good turnout, thus the result will not be true a reflection of the district’s electorate.
Let’s face it ? voting is usually the last thing on most people’s minds, especially in months not typically associated with going to the polls. Usually, the only time we vote in February is during presidential primaries and 2009 won’t have any of those.
Personally, I would have preferred this bond proposal been placed on last month’s general election ballot.
Voter-turnout in Oxford and Addison townships ? which comprise the majority of the school district ? was approximately 75 percent. For an apathetic society disillusioned by a corrupt government, this was truly phenomenal.
When I asked Superintendent Dr. Bill Skilling why it wasn’t placed on the November ballot, he explained that there simply wasn’t enough time for the citizen-driven committees to formulate the proposal and for the district to get all the necessary ducks in a row to make it happen so quick.
Given the scope and complexity of the issues involved with this bond proposal, that’s certainly understandable.
I have no reason to doubt Dr. Skilling’s word as he’s thus far been fairly open and honest with me and very good about communicating with the newspaper.
But the cynical part of me can’t help but feel some school officials and pro-bond folks might favor a February election as opposed to a November election because the former has a better chance of leading to a positive outcome.
When it comes to tax issues, conventional election wisdom says high turnouts usually end in ‘no? votes whereas low turnouts favor ‘yes? voters.
That’s not always the case, but it’s often true.
In an Aug. 15, 1999 article which appeared in the Education Report published by those fine folks at Mackinac Center for Public Policy, writer Lori Yaklin stated, ‘Low voter-turnout, in school board and school finance elections, allows a vocal minority to exert inordinate control over decisions that have a profound influence on children.?
There are lots of school officials out there who fear high voter-turnouts. Yaklin quoted a Grand Rapids School Board president in 1998 as saying, ‘I don’t want to devise a system that creates voter-turnout simply to create voter-turnout.?
A Bay City School Board President was quoted as saying, ‘One thing to worry about (when) trying to pass a bond issue or something like that is that more people might mean more ‘no? votes.?
In a 1996 article in The Flint Journal, Linda Beers, of the Michigan Association of School Boards, was quoted as saying, ‘We want to get the most knowledgeable people at the polls, not necessarily the masses.?
Why do you think the Oakland Intermediate School District put those so-called ‘stealth? millage increases on the September 25, 2001 ballot?
Those weasel-like, conniving Educrats in Pontiac knew a September election would more than likely yield a very low turnout, which would favor a ‘yes? vote.
And they were right. Approximately 57,000 voters ? less than 8 percent of registered voters at the time ? in all of Oakland County cast a ballot in that election.
The millage hikes ? allegedly for vocational and special education, but really for a new ISD headquarters to house nearly 600 administrators ? narrowly passed and we’re still paying to this very day.
When it comes to questions like should the Oxford school district increase its debt load by another $70 million and give taxpayers an additional 10 extra years of payments, I want to make sure the voter-turnout is extremely high, so the result is what the people truly want.
I don’t want a minority of school district voters deciding such an important issue, such a far-reaching issue, such a long-lasting issue.
Heck, if this bond proposal is successful, by the time’s the school’s overall debt is paid off in 2041, I’ll be 65 years old and hopefully living somewhere warm.
I know some of you out there hope it’s Hell.
Whether it passes or fails, I want a clear-cut majority of the district’s voters to go to the polls and make a decision.
If this bond proposal is truly a ‘community-driven? process as the superintendent proudly claims, it should be passed or failed by a majority of the community, not a handful of people.
School taxes affect everyone, not just PTO moms, athletic booster dads or steering committee members.
They affect senior citizens, small business owners and people without children.
The great thing about elections is everyone has an equal voice no matter who they are, what they do or how much they earn. Everybody gets just one vote.
Elections should be held to make all votes count, not make sure certain people vote and others don’t.
I would urge the Oxford Board of Education to NOT place the proposed $70 million bond proposal on the February ballot. At least put it on a ballot in November ? the time of year most people associate with voting.

As my family gathers round the Thanksgiving feast this year, one of the things I will be most thankful for is the fact that I live in and serve such a generous and compassionate community.
In the Nov. 11 issue, through a front page story and my column, I sounded the call to help Audrey Tenaglia, who’s dying of cancer, and her family in Addison Twp.
To say the response was overwhelming would be the understatement of this still very young century.
As of Monday, I learned that $13,400 had been collected so far to help send the Tenaglias to Disney World (Audrey’s dream) with plenty left over to help pay household and medical expenses.
By the way, Audrey, her husband and four children are leaving for Disney World on Nov. 28. Mission accomplished.
On Tuesday morning, I learned that Oxford High School’s Student Council, National Honor Society and various clubs, teachers, and departments had collected an additional $3,005 for the Tenaglias.
Tuesday evening Brett Knapp, owner of Red Knapp’s American Grill, called to tell me the fund-raiser at his downtown Oxford eatery raised another $900.
I then talked to Laura Wiseman, one of Audrey’s friends, and she gave me some updated figures. For those keeping track, it appears a total of $20,232 has been raised thus far since The Audrey Tenaglia Fund was set up at Oxford Bank on Nov. 3.
Astonishing. Unreal. Wonderful. Heartwarming. Humbling. There are many words to describe what this community has done for Audrey Tenaglia and her family, but all of them seem to fall short.
I couldn’t believe it when Oakland County Commissioner Brad Jacobsen (R-Oxford) stopped by my house Thursday night to personally deliver a 4-inch stack of money ? a total of $1,773 ? collected for the Tenaglias at a recent gathering of Oakland County Republicans.
My wife cried. She was so overcome by the generosity, the outpouring of love.
Speaking of my wife, Connie Miller, hats off to her for masterfully organizing the Nov. 15 pancake breakfast at Immanuel UCC that netted $3,600 and served over 400 people.
No husband could be more proud of his wife. No husband could ask for a better wife.
There are plenty of people to thank for making all this possible and I wanted to use my column space this week to give them proper recognition.
If I forget to mention someone please forgive the oversight and know your contribution was very much appreciated.
The selfless and caring ladies who set up The Audrey Tenaglia Fund ? Laura Wiseman, Lisa Scribner and Evelyn Pickwick ? wish to thank the following people and businesses for their donations and help:
Gordon Food Service, The Oxford Leader, A&A Flowers, Leonard’s Market, Chili’s, Collier Lanes, Oxford 7 Theater, Mary Rowley of Paul’s Barber Shop, Tim Scribner with SOS Mechanical, Fatty’s Pizza, Casa Real, The Nugget, Domino’s Pizza, Bruce Pearson, Tom’s Hardware, The Red Tag Store, Lakeville Inn, Louie’s Food and Spirits, Fancy Feet and Fingers, Immanuel UCC, Catherine Commons with Arbonne, Victoria’s Delights, Andrea Ballor and Angela Palondo at Laura Lee’s Salon, Barbara Theurer, Greg Jorgensen, Red Knapp’s, Debbie Kiser with Mary Kay, Sweet & Savory Bake Shop, Harvest Time Farm Market, North Oakland Elks Club, Liz Wilson, Jan Cantaroni, The McBride Family, The Medvedik Family, Sheila Robertson, Mr. and Mrs. Hall, Cindi Fons, Greg and Amy Merritt, Julianne London, Oxford Schools, Kim and John Payne, Doreen Foutch, The Bell Family, The Salani Family, The Macocha Family and The Macey/Kroninger Family.
I would personally like to thank Bill with Ad-Rite Signs Outdoor for donating space on the Message Center billboard along M-24 to help promote the pancake breakfast.
I hate to sound corny, but the way this community rallied together to help the Tenaglias reminded me of the classic 1946 Christmas movie ‘It’s a Wonderful Life.?
Like George Bailey, Audrey Tenaglia is truly the richest person in town ? rich in friends and neighbors, rich in love, rich in all the things that truly matter in life.
It’s stories like these that help restore my faith in humanity, which often gets a little too low when I have to report on ugly things like sex offenders, lying politicians, scam artists and personal tragedies.
I was honored to play a small part in helping to make all this happen.
I received an e-mail from Oxford resident Sue Fazzini that really made me feel great about just doing my job.
She wrote, ‘Just wanted to thank you for your article about the Tenaglia family…It lit the fire that got my butt down to that fund-raiser even though I didn’t know the family. I’ve always been shy to show up at those things, thinking, ‘Well, I don’t know them…? But it felt good to help and the pancakes and sausage were awesome! Thanks for being good at what you do.?
Thanks for the compliment Sue, but all I did was pen a few lines, the people of this community, yourself included, did the real work for the Tenaglia family.
Happy Thanksgiving to all and to the Tenaglia family ? Enjoy Disney World!

I recently got to realize one of my dreams by shooting my own Thanksgiving turkey right here in Oxford.
Just like a Pilgrim, I went out into the woods and bagged me a nice plump wild turkey with a 7?-inch beard.
Hunting turkeys in the fall is a lot harder than the spring because they’re not mating, so calls and decoys are fairly useless. You just have to be in the right place at the right time.
Fortunately, I was just that when not one, not two, but three Toms came wandering through. Thrilling doesn’t even begin to describe the experience.
This year when the family sits down to give thanks it will not be over a store-bought or farm-raised bird, but over one that I bagged.
Putting meat on your table gives one quite a sense of accomplishment and feeling of connection to the past, especially in this urbanized, modern world where too many of us forget where our food really comes from.
I wish more people were able to experience this feeling or at least understand it before they judge others.
Over in Ortonville at our sister paper, The Citizen, a few people recently wrote letters to the editor maligning hunters and criticizing the newspaper for running photos of their deceased prey.
I can only pity these poor ignorant people because they have limited and distorted views of the world.
Whether you believe in God, Darwin or Obama, there’s no denying that man is part of nature and part of the food chain. In order for us to live, something else must die whether it’s an animal or a plant. It’s that simple.
With all of our food neatly packaged at the grocery store, often in forms not found in nature (i.e. the McNugget), most of us don’t know what it’s like to get a little blood on our hands before supper.
As a result, many people are disconnected from nature.
Going for a walk or bike ride on the Polly Ann Trail decked out in spandex with an iPod and a big bottle of vitamin water may be good exercise, but it does not put you in touch with nature.
Killing something, gutting it, cooking it and eating it does.
There are those who say hunting is primitive and barbaric. Yes, it certainly is.
Other than the desire to mate, killing to survive is probably man’s most basic and necessary instinct.
When we lose touch with that instinct, we lose touch with part of what it means to be human.
We diminish who we are and forget where we came from as a species.
And by the way, there’s no such thing as ‘animal rights.?
Animals don’t have rights, only people do.
With rights come responsibilities like voting, paying taxes, donating to charity and holding up our end of the car pool.
The last time I looked animals don’t have any responsibilities. They eat, crap, mate, sleep and try not to get eaten by toothy predators ? that’s it.
To claim animals have rights implies they are equal to human beings, which they most certainly are not.
Animals are here to serve us. We eat them. We wear them. We have them in our homes to provide loving companionship. We use them for medical testing to lengthen and improve our lives.
As humans, we have a responsibility to treat animals humanely and use them wisely as we would any other natural resource.
Hunters aren’t out there to abuse animals or make them suffer. We’re there to get the cleanest kill possible, fill our freezer with fresh, chemical/hormone-free meat and have some fun and relaxation. There’s nothing wrong with that.

During the more than nine years I’ve covered the Oxford/Addison area, I’ve always been extremely impressed with this community’s ability to come together to help those in need.
Generous and compassionate are words that don’t even begin to describe the people of this area, from next door neighbors and complete strangers to small business owners and school students.
I watched the community rally when the Rivest family in Addison Township lost a father, a baby boy and a home in a tragic explosion and fire.
I watched the community rally when Addison resident Hunter Strunk needed a new wheel-chair lift to make life a little easier for him and his care-giving mother.
Every year, I watch as Oxford/Orion FISH pantry gets stocked and re-stocked with donated cans and boxes of food from people who don’t want to see anyone’s cupboard go bare.
Every week it seems like there’s a story about Rotarians, Lions, Kiwanians, church members or veterans of American Legion Post 108 helping individuals and families who have fallen on hard times.
The people of this area give their money, their time and in some cases, the clothes right off their backs when one of their own cries out ‘I need help? ? or someone else says it for them.
This week I wrote a front page story on how a trio of friends in Addison have come together to help Audrey Tenaglia’s dream come true and give her family a lasting memory.
Right now, a young husband is facing the grim prospect of losing a soulmate and becoming a widower.
Four children will soon know what it’s like to grow up without a mother to hug them through the bad times, tuck them in at night or pack a little something extra in their school lunches.
No more kisses on the forehead to check for a fever. No more Mother’s Day breakfasts in bed. No more mom to make it all better.
A loving mother will miss watching her children grow up. School plays, little league games, holiday meals, graduations and weddings will forever be marked by an empty seat.
I will never understand why things like this happen. To throw up my hands and simply say it’s all part of some Divine Plan is of little comfort.
Maybe when all is revealed at the end of our days, we will look back and understand, but for now I’m sad and angry that a 42-year-old mother’s life is being cut much too short.
All I know right now is the community can’t cure Audrey Tenaglia.
We can’t give her more time to spend with her family.
But we most certainly can give the Tenaglias one perfect, final memory to carry in their hearts forever.
We most certainly can raise enough money to send them to Disney World.
We most certainly can raise enough money to lighten some of the financial burden imposed by household and medical expenses.
We most certainly can show Audrey she need not fear leaving this earth because there’s a whole community standing ready to care for her family in her absence.
We most certainly can give Audrey some peace of mind and peace in her heart.
The Darkness doesn’t care if we curse it. It only shrinks when our hearts light the way for another like Audrey.
Times are tough all over and many of us are watching our bank accounts dwindle.
But when it comes to our ability to love others, especially those who need it in their darkest hours, the account of human kindness can never be overdrawn.
I’m calling on the residents of Oxford and Addison to once again rally for Audrey Tenaglia and her family.
To all those who can relate to Audrey’s situation ? from cancer survivors to parents of school-age children to those robbed of someone they love much too early ? I call on you to do your part.
To all those fortunate enough to not know what Audrey’s situation is like, I call on you to do your part.
Time is short. We must act quickly.
Let’s give the Tenaglia children an early Christmas present and grant Audrey’s wish. Judging by what her friends told me, she’d do it for anyone of us.

Well, the votes have been tallied and another election’s come and gone. Thank God it’s over.
I was extremely pleased to see that the Village of Leonard will be getting a new president in the form of Mike McDonald.
The Mallia dynasty is officially over and the town’s people have been liberated. It’s like somebody finally stood up to the school bully and gave him a bloody nose.
Good job, Leonard!
I assume the ban against me has been lifted and I may return without having to worry about being run out of town on a rail.
However, before I set foot within village limits, I would like an official resolution from the village council stating I’m welcome again. You can’t be too careful.
Unfortunately here in Oxford, township Treasurer Joe Ferrari was re-elected.
But hey, I wouldn’t call four more years of potential column fodder a loss for me, so what the heck. I’ll put in an order for a few more barrels of ink.
Even though I encouraged people not to, I do wish to express my gratitude to the 495 people who voted for me.
It’s a very humbling thing to receive someone’s vote.
It means they have confidence in you and trust you to represent them well.
A vote is more than just a darkened circle on a piece of paper, it’s a sign of faith and an expression of hope that the person who receives it will always serve the people’s interests and do the right thing.
From the bottom of my heart, thank you to everyone who cast their ballot for me. I’m truly honored.
To all the independent candidates who sought the treasurer’s position and the one who ran for trustee, I applaud your willingness to put yourself out there and try to make a difference.
A democratic republic only works when good people are willing to step up and take an active role in their government. Voting doesn’t mean a whole lot if people don’t have real choices.
You guys didn’t win, but you tried. You showed you care about Oxford and how it’s governed.
There’s nothing wrong with that. Hold your heads high.
And if any of you still have the itch to serve in government, I believe there’s still a job opening in the Village of Holly . . .
As for the national level, no surprise there ? Democrat Barack Obama’s heading for 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
All I can say is the American people have no idea what they’ve done.
Those long lines we waited in to vote are good practice for the ones we’ll be standing in to receive our socialized medicine and turn in our guns.
All hail the rebirth of socialism, comrades!
I, for one, can hardly wait for Obama to start redistributing what’s left of my wealth.

My friends, I have some tragic news.
Please sit down.
I, C.J. Carnacchio, editor of The Oxford Leader, have been banned from the Village of Leonard.
Please, please, settle down and let me explain. I know it’s shocking.
It seems that because I dared to criticize village President Eugene Mallia, Jr. ? Geno to dear friends like me ? I am no longer allowed to enter Leonard.
Last week, one of his relatives used the ‘tricity to send me a disparaging e-mail regarding my opinion of good ol? Geno.
I’m used to letting things just roll off my back, but there was one part of the e-mail which hurt me so deeply that I . . . I . . . I must be strong here.
This person wrote, ‘And as for Leonard, you’re not welcome here. We will find someone else to cover stories for our events.? Heavens to Murgatroyd!
No longer will I be able to attend the Strawberry Festival and take all those wonderful photos. Say it ain’t so!
No longer will I be able to cover cute little stories at Leonard Elementary. Sniff. . .
No longer will I be able to attend the Christmas tree lighting and sing carols inside Rowland Hall. Sniff, sniff.
No longer will I be able to visit Fire Station #1 because it’s just inside the village limits. Curses!
Oh my God, this means I’ll never, ever be invited to play in the big money Texas Hold’em poker tournament held inside somebody’s pole-barn every July. . .
What have I done?
Why did I dare to criticize the great and powerful Geno?
I was so foolish to take sides against ‘the Family.?
Didn’t poor Fredo Corleone’s fate teach me anything?
Okay, enough fun.
Who the heck has enough arrogance to tell someone their banned from a community and actually mean it?
I realize Geno views himself as some sort of a prince entitled by birth to rule Leonard as part of a family dynasty, but I never realized the delusions of grandeur extended to others in the blood line.
You know what? Two can play at this game.
I hereby ban Geno Mallia, Jr. and all his family members from entering the Village of Oxford. I’ve alerted the village police to be on the lookout for Geno and set up checkpoints around the village limits.
Since Geno works at Oxford Bank’s main branch downtown, I’m sure this action will cripple him financially.
Wait a minute, I’ve got an even better idea. I hereby ban Geno Mallia, Jr. from entering the entire Charter Township of Oxford, period. Checkmate! I win! In your face!
But then again, I already won when, according to two Leonard residents, Geno went around last week stapling little notes on his campaign signs indicating who paid for them, as required by state law.
When I drove by ? prior to the ban ? I noticed how some we’re just hanging, ready to blow off.
Funny, Geno didn’t do all this until after I pointed out his obvious violation in last week’s column. I guess if you play the right tune, you can make good ol? Geno dance.
Maybe if Mike McDonald is elected village president Nov. 4, I can request he lift the ban and allow this humble scribe to return to the quaint shire.

Last week, a coalition calling itself ‘Democrats for Patterson? held a press conference to show support for Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson.
Kind of reminds me of the ‘Jews for Jesus? movement, only difference is Jesus is God, Brooksie just thinks he is. I guess we should just be thankful Patterson can’t change water into wine. Heck, he can’t even get Wireless Oakland off the ground.
***
Speaking of arrogant public officials, as I was driving through the Village of Leonard last week, I noticed that none of village President Geno Mallia, Jr.’s campaign signs had anything printed on them as to who paid for them, a clear violation of state law.
I took a few photos just in case someone from the state or county wanted to see for themselves.
On each campaign sign, state law requires the words ‘paid for by? followed the full name of the person or committee paying for them, and the person or committee’s street number or post office box, city or town, state and zip code.
There’s absolutely no excuse for someone who’s held public office for 16 years to not follow state law.
In this case, I’m inclined to believe the violation is not ignorance of the law, but arrogance of the individual.
Unfortunately, Geno owes his lengthy presidency not to hard work or proven leadership, but to a large gene pool in a town of only 330 people.
I’m hoping Leonard voters will end the Mallia dynasty Nov. 4 and elect Mike McDonald to the village presidency.
Governments should be elected based on whoever receives the most votes, not whoever has the most relatives.
***
Now that the cityhood issue is behind us, we must look for ways to bring the township and village closer together.
One way is to have more village representation on the township board and I think electing village resident Rudy Reyes as a trustee is a good start.
Village residents are less likely to feel alienated and suspicious of the township’s decision-making process if they have more of a voice on the board.
Currently, the only village resident serving on the board is Supervisor Bill Dunn. Although he’s done a good job representing the interests of village residents, particularly on the recent safety path issue, he’s only one vote.
It wouldn’t hurt to have another village resident on the board. Personally, I think Reyes along with Joe Bunting, Mike Spisz and Melvin ‘Buck? Cryderman would make a good group of trustees. That’s how I’m voting.
***
It appears the Village of Oxford’s deal to purchase the old township hall on W. Burdick St. is falling through and as a village taxpayer I couldn’t be more pleased.
Last week, council said it wants the $262,500 sale price lowered by $75,000 due to needed repairs. I seriously doubt the township’s going to knock that much off the price.
The best thing that could happen is for the township to tell the village to ‘take a hike? and move the Oakland County Sheriff substation into the space. Plans to convert the space were drawn up last year at taxpayer expense. Why not use them instead of just letting them collect dust?
Besides, the village shouldn’t be purchasing any real estate while it has a $2.45 million debt hanging over our heads for construction of the new water treatment plant.
The last thing the village needs right now is to shell out a bunch of money for property that’s just going to sit there ? just ask the Downtown Development Authority.
***
Supervisor Dunn tells me there’s just over $7 million in the township sewer fund and he would like to see about using some of that cash to reduce sewer rates. With everything else going up in price these days, I’m sure township sewer customers would appreciate having at least one bill go down. No government should be allowed to just sit on that much extra cash, especially in these tough times.
Hopefully, the new township board will agree.
***
Well, it took more than a month, but the Libertarian Party finally got me a lawn sign for its presidential candidate, Bob Barr, a former Republican congressman.
I’d like to get a bumper sticker and maybe a couple of buttons too, but I can’t wait until January.

I’m not sure what the motivation behind it was.
The cynical side of me believes it’s just another election year ploy designed to get votes in November.
The optimistic side of me ? yes, there is one ? wants to believe there are lawmakers in Lansing who care and even use common sense once in a while.
As with most things, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but then again who cares because property tax relief could be on the way!
Last week, the state House of Representatives voted to place a constitutional amendment before Michigan voters that would put a further cap on property taxes.
Can I get an Amen from the pews?
Under the proposal, known as House Joint Resolution III, any year the State Equalized Value (SEV) of a piece of property goes down, the taxable value of that parcel may NOT increase. Sounds good to me.
The state Senate, which is expected to vote on this Oct. 2, is looking to place it on the February 2009 ballot.
Finally, some relief for all of us embattled property owners who watched the value of our land and houses go down this year, but our property taxes still go up. Talk about getting held by the nose and kicked in the wallet.
This proposal would fix a problem with the 1994 constitutional amendment known as Proposal A.
Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely love Proposal A.
For years, it prevented people from being taxed out of their homes as property values skyrocketed in many areas. It did so by capping the taxable value and limiting increases to the rate of inflation or 5 percent, whichever’s less.
My wife and I most likely couldn’t afford the property taxes on our Oxford Village home if not for Proposal A.
However, Prop A had one flaw. It was so focused on keeping property taxes low when times were booming that it didn’t take into account what would happen to taxable values when the economy started circling the drain like now. That’s why most of us this year saw our homes? SEV go down while our property taxes still went up.
HJR III would stop this scenario from repeating itself ever again. It simply doesn’t make sense to force people to pay more taxes on property that’s worth less. If suddenly your employer cut your paycheck in half, would you expect to pay more income tax? Of course not.
HJR III would also change the taxable value cap for the better. Under the proposal, if the SEV increases by less than the rate of inflation, then the taxable value could not increase by more than that percentage.
As stated earlier, right now Proposal A caps taxable values and limits increases to the rate of inflation or 5 percent, whichever happens to be less at the time.
Already lobbying groups that represent local governments ? like the Michigan Townships Association and Michigan Municipal League ? are sniveling and wringing their hands about this proposal and how it, coupled with other factors, is going to mean less money for townships, villages, cities, etc. and ‘crippling? cuts in local services.
Boo hoo, boo hoo . . . my heart bleeds for you.
Frankly, I really don’t care about government.
I care about people like you and me being able to put gas in our cars, food in our refrigerators, clothes on our kids and heat in our homes this winter.
If government has to make due with even less money, I say, ‘Oh well, join the club. The poverty line forms here.?

Hi, my name is C.J. Carnacchio and I’m a recovering straight-ticket voter. I’m ashamed to admit I used to vote straight GOP ballots when election season rolled around.
Don’t judge me. I was young. I needed the money.
I’d go into the voting booth, mark my ballot, then completely black out.
I’d come to hours later, groggy and unable find my pants, with the words ‘I Love Bob Dole? tattooed on my right butt cheek. Maybe it was the left cheek . . .
But that all changed when the Republican Party completely abandoned the sacred principles of limited, constitutional government and individual liberty under George W. Bush.
With the party of Goldwater and Reagan gone, I started voting for Libertarian candidates in recent years.
As a Burkean conservative, I don’t agree with all the tenents of the Libertarian platform, but at least they stand for something real, something honest.
It seems like third party and independent candidates are all the rage this year. Yesterday, my new political hero, Congressman Ron Paul, endorsed Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party’s candidate for president.
‘There is no real choice between the two major parties and their nominees, only the rhetoric varies,? Paul said.
Earlier this month, Paul held a press conference to draw attention to America’s third parties and independents on the Right, the Left and those floating somewhere out in space (i.e. the Natural Law Party, dude).
Paul made the ‘strong suggestion? that people should vote for what they believe in. What a novel concept ? voting based on your beliefs instead of casting a ballot for one of two candidates forced on us by a corrupt system that accepts neither outsiders nor true reform.
Even the Media’s starting to take notice of alternative candidates. Splashed across Monday’s front page of that newspaper down in Pontiac was the headline ? ‘Independents may wield influence in November.?
The article talked about the impact Libertarian and Green Party candidates could have on the general election.
It noted there are 14 people on the ballot for races in Oakland County who are third party or independent.
I’m glad to see so many people out there challenging the political duopoly that’s been dominating the political landscape and stifling meaningful debate for years.
We live in a country where the free market and competition are supposed to reign supreme. We’re a nation that loves choices, options and variety.
Why then do we settle for a political system monopolized by only two parties who have nothing to offer but more of the same? Who do we constantly resign ourselves to voting for the lesser of two Evils?
If we truly believe competition is healthy and choices are necessary for a free society, why then do we tell people that voting for anyone besides a Republican or Democrat is a waste of their vote?
It seems like everybody wants to be seen an agent of change this election year. Everybody wants to be the ‘radical? or ‘maverick? who’s going to shake things up.
If you really want to try to change things, don’t vote for the out-of-touch, clueless elephant or the polished ass braying empty promises, and start looking at the alternatives. Wouldn’t it be nice to exit the voting booth without feeling the need to take a shower?

I’m riding high these days ? and not because I just spent the last two weeks on vacation.
The Aug. 5 election was a complete success. Cityhood failed. Safety paths failed. Deadwood was cleared off both the township boards in Oxford and Addison.
New people with new ideas were elected to both boards.
Life is good. I’m actually feeling hopeful about the future.
Now, I can turn my full attention to the Nov. 4 general election and the long overdue ousting of Oxford Township Treasurer Joseph G. Ferrari.
Thanks to a column I wrote back in July, Ferrari is now facing a total of five opponents (including myself) in the November election.
I’m very pleased that so many people answered my call to arms. I just hope no one running for the treasurer’s position thinks it’s going to be easy to unseat Ferrari.
Ferrari has a lot working in his favor.
As an incumbent, he has 16 years worth of name recognition. The public knows who he is and when it comes to elections that’s half the battle right there.
Another advantage for Ferrari is the fact he’s running as a Republican. All five of his challengers are running without a political party affiliation.
Unfortunately, all those mindless straight-ticket voters are going to benefit Ferrari.
Obviously, he’ll automatically receive all the GOP votes. And since he faces no Democratic challengers, all those straight-ticket Obama voters will not hurt Ferrari’s chances.
Those running against Ferrari should take all this into consideration as they begin their respective campaigns.
The best advice I can give the challengers is to work hard at getting your name out in the public arena.
Signs and mailers are good, but there’s absolutely no substitute for face-to-face interaction.
So, put on your most comfortable pair of walking shoes and start going door-to-door right now.
Talk to people. Let them put a face with a name. Listen to their problems. Tell them directly where you stand and why you want the job. Seek their input.
People are more likely to vote for someone they’ve looked straight in the eye and shaken hands with.
When you’re not busy ringing doorbells, go have lunch with groups like Rotary, Lions, Kiwanis and the Oxford Area Chamber of Commerce. There’s no better way to meet Oxford’s movers and shakers.
Attend all the local township and village meetings you can between now and election day. Introduce yourself during public comment. It’s a great way to get your face and your views on Oxford Community Television.
And don’t be afraid to buy an ad in your local newspaper (hint, hint). I know it’s a shameless plug.
Above all, be honest with people and be yourself.
Don’t worry if you don’t sound slick and polished.
The last thing the world needs is another professional politician spewing forth tired cliches and sound bites.
Beating Ferrari is certainly going to be a daunting task, but not an impossible one if the challengers work hard and don’t take anything for granted.
Let the games begin!

It’s nearly 1:30 a.m. Wednesday morning as I finally sit down to pen this brief post-election column.
I am exhausted, yet exhilarated because I truly feel that the Forces of Good triumphed in yesterday’s primary election.
For the first time in a long time, I’m actually optimistic about the future of local government around these parts.
The corrupt, the clueless, the senile, the two-faced and the greedy were all swept off the township boards in Oxford and Addison.
For this, I must truly thank the wise voters in both communities because you’re the ones who made the difference.
You’re the ones who seized the opportunity to control your environment, went to the polls and decided to change the direction in which your government was heading.
A new day is about to dawn for both townships and I welcome it with outstretched arms, an open mind and a glad heart.
Oxford Township will have at least four new decision-makers including its first new clerk in 36 years.
I said ‘at least? because judging by these results it looks like there’s a good chance Treasurer Joe Ferrari could get the boot in November.
Addison Township will welcome three new faces to its board including a brand new supervisor.
This is an historic occasion and one which I hope will be recorded as the major turning point for both these troubled local governments.
I’m also overjoyed that the cityhood issue failed in the Village of Oxford. After five years of secret meetings, behind-the-scenes plotting and conniving, way too many attorney bills and plenty of divisive rhetoric, the most recent incarnation of the cityhood movement is DEAD.
The people who should have been asked about cityhood before all this nonsense started ? village voters ? finally got to have their say at the ballot box and the answer was ‘no.?
Now that the drive to divide Oxford is over, it’s time to begin the movement to unify Oxford.
I want to see these new faces on the township board working with the village council to finally bring about one Oxford government for the entire 36 square miles.
And for those 1,164 folks who voted ‘yes? on the failed safety path tax proposal, I have an idea.
Instead of lamenting the fact that the millage proposal tanked, take the bull by the horns and start a private fund-raising campaign to build safety paths without tax dollars.
You all can start the ball rolling if you each write a check for the amount the proposed millage would have cost you had it passed. Add to that some corporate sponsorships, grants, spaghetti dinner fund-raisers, more private donations and you should be able to make some real progress.
It worked for Kids Kingdom. It’s working for the KLR Splash Pad. Why not safety paths?

I love political humor, especially during an election year.
Did you hear the one about the candidate who accidentally ran for office?
No? Well, the joke’s on me ? literally.
Because of a heavy work load and a memory lapse, I forgot to withdraw my petition to appear on the November ballot as a candidate for Oxford Township treasurer.
Allow me to start at the beginning.
Two weeks ago, I wrote a column urging people to run for treasurer because 16-year incumbent Joe Ferrari had no competition.
I honestly thought people would read it and no one would run because let’s face it, there’s a lot of apathy out there. Lots of folks don’t want to be bothered with voting let alone the hassle of running for public office.
As a backup plan, I pulled petitions and started gathering signatures. I figured if no one else would run, I’d at least get my name on the ballot to give Ferrari some competition and make him sweat.
I vowed I wouldn’t do any campaigning whatsoever. No signs, no flyers, no mailers, no door-to-door butt-kissing, no ads, no endorsements, nothing.
My motto was going to be, ‘I will not spend a penny nor lift a finger to be elected.? Catchy, huh?
Low and behold, other people started pulling petitions for treasurer left and right. I started getting calls and e-mails from people interested in the position. Go figure.
I was greatly encouraged by the effect my column had, but continued collecting signatures because I wasn’t sure if any of these people were going to follow through or maybe they wouldn’t get enough valid signatures.
You never know. And I wanted to make sure there was somebody on the November ballot, so I collected 78 signatures ? a minimum of 60 was needed.
I decided to turn my petition in close to the deadline on July 17 just to make Ferrari sweat a little more.
When I submitted them to the clerk’s office, I learned that four people had already turned in valid petitions.
Ah, the power of the press.
From zero challengers to four opponents, I was happier than a pig in fresh slop. I’m sure Ferrari was reaching for some aspirin with a Pepto chaser.
I decided to see how many of my signatures were valid ? 77 out of 78 ? and then withdraw my petition on Monday.
Unfortunately, I didn’t remember to do this until after the 4 p.m. deadline ? 15 minutes after to be exact.
In my defense, I was extremely busy Monday. With the exception of Dan Shriner filling in part-time for the recently departed Casey Curtis, I’m largely a one-man newspaper right now so my mind is in a million different places.
I called the township clerk’s office to see if there was some wiggle room concerning the withdrawal deadline. They checked with the county.
No dice. I’m on the ballot. Case closed.
I felt the need to explain all this so I wouldn’t appear to be some sort of jerk who urged other people to run and then did himself. I told everybody who signed my petition that I had no intention of running if someone else stepped up to the plate and I meant it.
Normally, I’m a man of my word. But in this case, I simply forgot and made a bonehead mistake. Contrary to popular belief, I am human.
Even though I’m on the Nov. 4 ballot, I don’t want to hurt the other four candidates? chances of unseating Ferrari and making his part-time pizza delivery job a more permanent gig.
So, I’m asking, no, I’m begging, please DO NOT vote for me. I’m probably the first candidate in the history of politics to tell people this.
Please check out the other four candidates running against Ferrari and vote for one of those guys.
If you can’t decide, vote for whoever the Leader chooses to endorse in late October.
I absolutely, 100 percent guarantee it won’t be me.
I’m willing to go to great lengths to convince people to not mark my name on the ballot.
I’ll start vicious rumors about myself. I’ll go on a crime spree. I’ll have loud arguments with myself in the frozen food aisle. I’ll start draining water out of the Stringy Lakes and pumping it into the old cemetery.
I’m quite mad you know.
I’ll do whatever it takes to lose votes including using Walter Mondale, George McGovern and Michael Dukakis ? the Dream Team of Losers ? as campaign advisers.
To all you Republicans, I promise to raise taxes and increase spending. To all you Democrats, I promise to lower taxes and cut spending.
To Libertarians, I’ll threaten to give them government funding for the marijuana plants in their closets, then tax their gun collections to pay for it.
Instead of promising to be all things to all people, I’ll be the antithesis of who you are and whatever you stand for.
I implore you to search your heart on Nov. 4, then vote for somebody else.
Oxford deserves better than me ? just ask my wife.
The preceding was not paid for by the Committee to Not Elect C.J. Carnacchio, 35 Park St., Oxford, MI 48371.

I really don’t know why the North Oakland Transportation Authority bothers to have a board of directors.
Must be for show because it’s certainly not there to make decisions.
I was greatly troubled by the fact that Director Pat Fitchena took it upon her self to hire an attorney ? using money from her own pocket ? to represent NOTA when it came to appealing the December 2007 ruling that ex-employee Danny Poole was entitled to unemployment benefits.
I’ve written several stories about the on-going Fitchena versus Poole saga since early December so I’m not going to rehash the entire soap opera here.
Some people are probably thinking, ‘Hey, what’s the big deal? Pat spent her own money on the attorney and she won. Besides, she helps the seniors and made great omelettes at her old diner. Leave her alone you big fat jerk. You’re stupid.?
I fully expect to be inundated with nasty letters to the editor from the ‘Committee to Elect Pat Fitchena a Saint.? Judging by previous letters, no one is allowed to criticize her because she’s such a great lady and anyone who does is automatically wrong.
Call me crazy, but I have a real problem with a public employee, in this case Fitchena, hiring an attorney to represent NOTA, a taxpayer-funded entity, without the full board’s knowledge or approval.
Fitchena said she talked it over with NOTA Chairman John Sutphin and Board Member Dan Alberty, both of whom represent Addison, and they said it was okay with them if she wanted to appeal the decision using her own money.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Alberty and Sutphin do not constitute the entire NOTA board nor did this discussion take place during a public meeting.
What they told her is frankly irrelevant.
Alberty told me, ‘It was never brought up to the board because there was a short turnaround time as far as appealing it.?
Oh, really.
The judge’s decision in Poole’s favor was mailed out Dec. 20 and the deadline to appeal was Jan. 22. That’s roughly a month.
NOTA’s regular meeting was Jan. 17, plus the board held a special meeting on Jan. 3.
Given these dates, I’d say there was plenty of time to bring this issue before the board for discussion and possible action.
Another special meeting could have easily been called if neither of these two dates worked. As long as they’re posted 18 hours in advance, you’re good to go.
But that’s okay. Who needs pesky things like board meetings, deliberation and votes when we can govern by feelings, hunches and intuition.
‘I truly believe the board would have said okay, that it’s a legitimate expense and should have been done,? Alberty said.
I hope Mr. Alberty doesn’t try to read my mind. He might not like what I’m thinking.
Fitchena claims she hired the attorney and agreed to pay for his services because she wanted to clear her name. Fair enough.
But on the surface, it looks more like retaliation against an ex-employee for filing a written complaint about her alleged actions and abilities as NOTA’s director.
It also looks like fodder for a future lawsuit should Poole choose to take NOTA and Fitchena to court.
It’s interesting to note that the judge who recently ruled in Fitchena’s favor referred ? in writing ? to the attorney she hired as the ’employer’s attorney.?
That’s absolutely false.
She hired the attorney. She agreed to pay him. It was her attorney, not NOTA’s.
Fitchena was not Poole’s employer. She was his supervisor. NOTA was his employer.
The NOTA board should have decided whether to appeal and whether to pay for an attorney to represent it, not an employee.
I certainly hope the board doesn’t at some point in the future decide to reimburse Fitchena for her legal bills like Alberty wants to. I’ll be watching closely for that.
I don’t think anybody on the NOTA board views Fitchena as an employee because she’s a fellow elected official serving as a trustee on the Oxford Twp. Board.
Name another public employee who gets to serve on a government board and occasionally vote on issues that directly affect them.
I believe it’s Matthew 6:24 that says, ‘No one can serve two masters.?
Fitchena would do well to remember that.
But then again, she serves no masters.
The NOTA board basically lets her do as she wishes. And on the township board she’s one of seven equal votes ? no bosses there.
Fitchena answers to no one ? except maybe the voters on Aug. 5.