eley.org: The Last Word

Congratulations Fruitland; you did it. Your voice has been heard loud and clear: enough with the status quo — we want change! I must admit that there were dark nights of the soul when I wondered if I was pursuing the right path in making Fruitland’s problems public. Some board members felt it was inappropriate to “air dirty laundry” publicly (yet they refused to deal with it privately!). But many residents encouraged me to keep fighting for reform. There was a lot of heavy lifting, but you stayed with me and, together, we made tremendous progress. Now, with the slate clean, we can dig deeper and work to create a better, more responsive government for Fruitland Township.

When I was appointed to fill the trustee position vacated by Mari Hammond, I had never served in an elected position and I had no idea what was going on inside our township government. (I am sorry to admit my ignorance, but it’s true.) When I began to realize the gravity of the situation, I was appalled. More than a few people told me that things would never change; the current board could never be unified and could never be beaten in an election. I simply could not accept that, so I set about developing alliances with my fellow board members, reaching out to you through my website, and together we worked to implement meaningful improvements.

It wasn’t easy work and we did not always prevail. I remember sharing my frustration with my sister one cold November day. She gave me a poem, which I have kept on my desk to remind me that change is possible. This poem was the first thing that occurred to me when I heard about the election results. It goes like this:

Somebody said it couldn’t be done.
But she, with a chuckle, replied
that maybe it couldn’t,
but she would be one
who wouldn’t say so
until she had tried.
So she buckled right in
with a bit of a grin;
if she worried she didn’t admit it.
And she started to sing
as she tackled the thing
that couldn’t be done
and she did it!

The only thing I would change about the poem is the personal pronoun: “she” should be “we.” Because no matter how hard one tries, nothing is possible without the support, hard work and dedication of one’s friends. Thank you my friend. We did it. Now let the new day begin and let us continue working together to make Fruitland Township a better place.

As primary Election Day approaches, my thoughts turn to the concept of change. As voters in Fruitland Township, we are presented with a choice between the comfort of what is known and the intrigue of possibility. Contemplating what is, one finds a mélange of positive and negative.

Our current supervisor, Greg Boughton, is a good man and a dedicated public servant. My experience in working with Mr. Boughton has largely been positive. He is extremely knowledgeable about the township, well connected with and respected by other community leaders, willing to listen to new ideas, patient and kind. He is, as I have heard many Fruitlanders say, “a nice guy.”

Boughton’s challenger, Sam St. Amour, is a lesser-known entity by virtue of the fact that he has never held public office. I have had the opportunity to speak with him on several occasions and have found him to be articulate, well informed and good-natured. His “outsider” status, however, is a double-edged sword: an unknown suitor promising change. Change can be good or bad. The question is how will he govern?

One greets the optimism of a new day with an equally sobering thought of what will the new day bring? There will likely be several new members on the board after this election. New faces, new ideas, new agendas. The supervisor must lead these members effectively, or become bogged down by bickering and its dancing partner, gridlock. Nothing comes of this polarization and Fruitland needs strong leadership to maintain its balance in a changing landscape.

A good leader brings vision to an organization, creates a framework for implementing that vision, recruits the right individuals to carry out the vision, and then gently guides the process through the inevitable hurdles and roadblocks to a final resolution. This is no easy task, especially in a democracy, which is intrinsically designed to protect minority interests. Good democratic process is fully transparent and brings competing interests to the table to hash out the best solution. Bad process is imposed, top down “we know better than you do, trust us” policy. These policies rarely stand the test of time and typically result in short-term gains at the expense of long-term sustainability.

In casting my vote on August 5, I must make a choice between what I know and what I hope for. It feels very much like a gamble. Should I exchange the cards I am holding for what hides in the deck? I could improve my lot, or not…only time will tell. Regardless of the outcome, I take solace in the knowledge that the citizens of Fruitland Township are now fully engaged in their government and will demand accountability from their elected representatives. In fact, we are the real supervisors of this township and we must remain vigilant no matter who is elected.

Yard signs are sprouting around the township like dandelions. And that is as it should be. A relative newcomer to Fruitland, I have not yet witnessed a credible challenge to our incumbent office holders. This year is shaping up to be very interesting on that count. Supervisor Boughton is facing a serious bidder for his office in Sam St. Amour, who has already blanketed the township with signs and direct mail. So far, his campaign appears to be well-planned and executed, reflecting his business background. Mr. Boughton has yet to begin actively campaigning beyond his normal township duties.

Janell Beard, our dear clerk, also has a challenger in Karolyn Rillema, although much less visible that Mr. St. Amour. To my mind, this is a much more important race than the others because of the current clerk’s divisiveness and less-than-part-time commitment to her office. The casual observer might not realize that Ms. Beard rarely comes to work anymore and has missed a high percentage of board meetings and many important votes. When she does attend, she often is unaware of what has transpired in her absence — obviously not having read the minutes and needing to be briefed during session. However, when it comes to politics, Ms. Beard is a worthy adversary not to be underestimated. One would hope then that Ms. Rillema will take her campaign public soon, so as to engage the absentee primary voters before they cast their ballots. And don’t forget, Janell is counting the votes.

Fruitland’s political intrigue is further enhanced by the candidacies of Lester Hammond and Scott Beard. Both running for the office of trustee in the Republican primary, the dynamic duo apparently seek to bring the same brand of efficiency and collegiality to the Board that they instituted on the Parks and Recreation Commission. These denizens of obstinacy have isolated themselves from the democratic process and continue to resubmit a bloated Recreation Master Plan that conflicts with nearly every priority expressed by township residents in recent surveys, while rebuffing repeated attempts by the Board to meet and work out differences. As their plan circles the drain, so do thousands of taxpayer dollars. Imagine a Board with two Beards and a Lester…vote early and often.

If you’re looking for alternatives, you have some excellent choices for trustee this year. Long-time public servants, Mary Ann Bard and Gary Bole, have proven their mettle and diligence time and again. We have worked together to make the Board more responsive, accountable and fiscally conservative. Candidates Dick Ciezak and Jan Deur are newcomers to elected office, but not to township affairs. Ciezak is a retired union man and fierce defender of responsible government. His work on the roads committee helped bring about a maintenance policy that includes a long-overdue reconstruction of Orshal Road. Mr. Deur is a fiscal watchdog with a strong business pedigree, promising to implement an audit committee to investigate township expenditures and correct inefficiencies. I have worked closely with Mr. Deur on the Planning Commission and found him to be a very dedicated and civic-minded public servant.

Many township residents have spoken to me about their concerns for Fruitland’s future. Indeed, this is a pivotal year. After two-and-one-half years of heavy lifting, the township is poised for a turnaround. Policies and procedures are in place to prevent many of the fiscal and procedural mishaps of the past. Citizens are once again engaged in the democratic process and the Board is becoming more responsive to the needs and priorities of its constituents. There is much more to be done, but the groundwork is laid. Don’t forget, however, that all this work can easily be undone.

In his book, Good to Great, Jim Collins, summarizes the research-proven core philosophy that differentiates mediocre organizations from great ones: get the wrong people off the bus; get the right people on the bus and get them in the right seat. Then — and only then — can you decide where you’re going and how best to get there. Without the right people doing the jobs for which they are best suited, an organization has no chance for success. It’s true for business and it’s equally true for government. Now more than ever, your vote counts. Choose carefully. The bus is waiting. But it won’t wait for long.

This blog has always been about honest dialog between you and me. So let me begin by saying how much I missed you. We haven’t talked since February 22 and a lot has happened since then. How’s things? How’s the family? Good, glad to hear it. All’s well here on the Maple Hill Farm too, although some things have changed. The cows are gone. It was time, although they didn’t think so (who could blame them). No pigs this year due to a tragic series of events in the farrowing pen. No meat chickens either. Too much business travel, no time to tend baby chicks. I did tap maple syrup in March, but had to cut the process a couple of weeks short when I headed to France. More about that later.

I guess you could say that I have been taking stock of my life, making some hard decisions about what I can do and what I want to do. I am not one who relishes introspection, but edging toward my mid-40s has awakened a need for self-awareness, as well as a reluctant acceptance of the fact that gravity does apply to me after all (what a rude awakening!). It should be noted here that, as an inveterate optimist, I never ever think the light at the end of the tunnel could be an oncoming train. Never. And, after a while, that takes it’s toll.

So, after reading about fifty self-help, new age, eastern philosophy type books this winter, I got sick of navel gazing, feeling bad about my neck (thanks Nora Ephron!) and trying to make sense of it all. So, I headed to the south of France looking for answers (why not?). Away from the howling winter winds of Michigan, surrounded by spectacular scenery, happy people and sumptuous food a girl can regain her perspective. (BTW: they really do wear berets, play the accordion and say things like ooo-la-la and voila. Seriously, they really do.)

It was on the train somewhere between Monte Carlo and Cannes that I realized that nothing makes sense if you try to make sense of it. Life just is. Simple as that. Do what you can. A little bit everyday adds up over time. You can make a difference. But you can’t do everything.

So I headed back to Fruitland with my new found insight and a firm desire to bring my life back into balance. My first choice would be one of the hardest: trustee or planning commission? Even though I love both jobs, three meetings per month, committee work, reading, writing and studying the issues adds up. I could no longer do both.

As you now know, I chose the stay on the planning commission, primarily because I had accomplished what I set out to do on the board of trustees: bring transparency to the governing process, get the township’s fiscal house in order, and put policies and procedures in place to ensure open, honest government. The fact that a few people needed to be reminded that public service isn’t self-service was an added bonus.

Before I made this choice, however, I made sure that there were good candidates running for trustee who would continue reform efforts. There are. Talk to them. Ask hard questions. Choose carefully. Progress can easily be reversed if the right people aren’t on the bus.

Also, the planning commission is in the process of finishing some big projects and I want to see them to fruition. To be perfectly honest, I also like setting the agenda and running the meetings. I like getting citizens involved in the process and guiding the long-term vision for our community. It’s fun, it’s rewarding and things are moving in a very positive direction. I like driving this bus and I am honored that my colleagues and fellow citizens have entrusted me with the keys.

So, that’s the skinny. Yes, I seriously considered moving to France. It was a great fling and I’ll definitely go back for periodic refreshment. But I have decided to stay where my heart has always been: right here on my little farm, near my family, friends and the shores of Lake Michigan. Hope you don’t mind.

Thank you for giving me the privilege of serving as your trustee. It was an honor that I will never forget. There’s still a lot to do between now and the November election, and I plan to maximize these opportunities to continue our reforms. After November I do not know what my political future holds, but I hope to one day serve again in public office. Until then, I’ll do what I can and, together, we’ll do a lot.

The February 20 meeting of the Fruitland Township board of trustees offered an interesting insight into the human psyche — namely, that of our dear clerk, Janell Beard. Given the opportunity to set aside personal gain for the greater good, she refused — revealing a stark dichotomy between the person she claims to be and her true character. Like a tree falling in the forest, a sound was made that few heard. But the impact was undeniable.

As is required by law, the board voted on salary resolutions for elected officials for the 2008-09 fiscal year, which begins on April 1. Regular readers of this website will recall last year’s controversy surrounding the clerk’s salary resolution, when the board voted against renewing her $1,500 election bonus provision, which expired on March 31, 2007. The clerk immediately sued the township and, in addition to the bonus, demanded an extra $3,000 for her mental anguish. A majority board vote restored the bonus, but the clerk was left to own devices to deal with her mental issues.

Evening came and morning followed. But the damage was done. In retribution against the board, the clerk put herself on a paid vacation. She no longer comes to work most days, choosing instead to delegate her duties to staff members, the supervisor and treasurer. (These individuals receive no additional compensation for what has become the clerk’s “friendship tariff.”) She refuses to speak to some board members, referring all questions and requests for information to the supervisor.

The law prohibits the board from requiring set working hours for an elected official, although it expects that one perform one’s statutory duties. There are provisions for ridding a township of underperforming elected officials, namely a recall by the electors. But the clerk knows that this option is not likely to be exercised. So, she confidently continues her semi-retirement while collecting her full salary, benefit and bonuses with impunity.

Which brings us back to the February 20 board meeting. With the motion to adopt the clerk’s salary resolution on the floor, I presented the clerk with an opportunity to do the right thing. I reminded her that she, by law (MCL 41.95[2]), has the power to refuse the bonus. I told her that the money could be allocated toward worthy township projects, such as road repair.

I asked the supervisor to give the clerk a moment to consider her options. The clerk did not wait for me to finish my sentence, stating she “did not need a moment.” She flatly refused to give up the bonus; the board gave it to her and it was hers, fair and square.

The history of how this bonus came to be is noteworthy. In 2005, on the day the board was required to vote on her salary resolution, the clerk told her colleagues that all clerks were to receive $1,500 per election in additional compensation because of “election consolidation.” This last minute notice deprived the board of the option to research her claim. But they trusted her guidance and adopted the $1,500 provision.

The board would later learn that it was mislead by the clerk; no other clerk in the state of Michigan receives such a bonus for the performance of a statutory duty (doubt has been expressed regarding its legality). But as the clerk knew well when she convinced the board to trust her, once given, the bonus could not be taken away until her term expired (without an expensive court battle anyway).

That fateful vote cost the taxpayers of Fruitland Township tens-of-thousands of dollars. It has divided the board, which, rightly, feels betrayed by its clerk. By presenting the clerk with the opportunity to voluntarily forego this divisive bonus, I was giving her the chance to cleanse her conscience and restore the dignity of her office. She chose not to.

They say that past if prologue and there are no second acts in American politics. Of course, neither of these things must be true. The clerk, like all of us, has the gift of free will. She was given the opportunity to rise above her own selfishness and aspire to something greater: the common good. Instead, she chose thirty pieces of silver. It’s too bad. When substituted for one’s honor and integrity, money is cold comfort. Because, in the end, you can’t take it with you.

I wish you could have known my father. To me, he was the quintessential Irishman: strong, resourceful, full of life, loquacious — especially after a pint or two. But the thing I miss most about him is his enduring optimism. This characteristic was further enhanced by his refusal to take life’s setbacks personally. No matter what obstacle would befall him, he would step back, assess the situation, gather its lessons and move on. He was not one to dwell on what might have been, though I am certain some of his dreams went unrealized. He was a man of action, undaunted by adversity, determined to live life on his own terms (just ask my mother!).

It was my father I thought of after last Monday’s board meeting when my colleagues overruled the planning commission’s recommendation to change the minimum lot size requirement in the medium-density residential (MDR) district from 1 acre to 2 acres. This recommendation was not undertaken lightly, nor was it a surreptitious “taking,” as characterized by our dear Clerk. It was the primary outcome of two-and-one-half years of extensive study, special meetings, public input and public hearings.

This community dialog began with a survey, completed by over 800 Fruitland residents, that revealed a strong preference — 62.9 percent — for lot sizes of 2 1/2 acres or more. This finding was consistent with public response to residential development in the township. I chaired several public hearings on various developments; the opposition was nearly unanimous and the primary concern was density. Too many houses, too close together. Residents worried about loss of rural character, water and sewerage issues, negative impact on natural resources and habitat. Their voices were clear and consistent: limit development, reduce density.

Unlike some governmental entities, the Fruitland planning commission (PC) listened intently to their constituents and set about developing policies to implement these priorities. The first step was a comprehensive master plan, which was unanimously adopted by both the PC and the board. The plan defined our long-term community vision: why, where, how we will grow. Next, the PC crafted a planned unit development (PUD) ordinance, which codified the master plan vision with respect to residential developments of ten or more units.

By virtue of their size and scope, these types of developments have greater, long-term impact on the community than the construction of a single residence on a single parcel. The PUD ordinance requires developers to follow very strict environmental design guidelines to protect the health, safety and welfare of township residents. Additionally, it shifts the cost burden from the taxpayer to the developer, requiring them to fund their own infrastructure and governmental administrative costs related to review and oversight. Like the master plan, the PUD ordinance was unanimously adopted by the PC and board.

The final step — and some might say key stone — of this process was to increase the MDR lot size requirement. The master plan outlined our vision for a sparsely populated, rural community. The PUD placed strict controls on how development would look, impact and integrate into the environment. The increased MDR density would put a little more breathing room between houses, wells and septic tanks, while preserving open spaces for the natural beauty and wildlife that brought all of us here in the first place.

The board, unfortunately, decided not to implement this step. Each member had their reasons and I do not question the integrity of the vote. Although I tried to convey the importance and strong community support for this critical step, the majority of my board colleagues would not be swayed. Although they produced no evidence in support of their opinions, nor did any residents rise to join their chorus, logic and overwhelming public opinion failed to persuade.

The November 25 Beacon article called the vote a “clash,” and said I was “blindsided” and upset. This characterization may ring true for some board members who make every vote personal and view honest disagreement as tantamount to treason. But, I am not that person. Although I am disappointed by the vote, I do not take it personally, nor am not discouraged or angry. I did my best, as did the other members of the planning commission and the many township residents who participated in this process. We put forth our best effort, but we did not convince the board. I take some responsibility for this failure. I should have done more to educate my board colleagues. They too bear responsibility for their actions and could have taken the initiative to educate themselves by attending a few PC meetings, sharing their concerns during the master planning process, bringing forth information to help guide the process to ensure the best outcome for the whole community.

The failure of this vote was indeed a set back for the residents of Fruitland Township. But it is not the end of the world. Let us step back, assess the situation, gather its lessons and move forward. It has been my experience that, in the words of M.L. King, the arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice. Or, as my dad used to say, do the right thing and you won’t have to worry about a spanking. If a 2-acre MDR is the right thing for this township, you will let the board know and, if they are wise, they will listen and act accordingly to avoid a spanking at the polls next November. It’s up to you now, Fruitland. Make your voice heard. It’s what dad would have done.

As I walked out to the barn this morning to wake the chickens and feed the cows, the grass, coated with frost, crackled beneath my boots. Summer’s over, no doubt about it – although Mother Nature has been more than kind in gradually turning down the temperature. The falling leaves and chilling air signal a change in priorities on the farm: summer’s frantic pace of plowing, planting and harvest is gradually easing into the season of preparation for the long, cold winter. And the same is true with your Fruitland Township government.

The summer was spent carrying out the mandates of our 2007-08 budget: fixing roads, maintaining township facilities, implementing the master plan and corresponding zoning changes. I also spent a great deal of time studying issues and talking with residents in an effort to identify key township priorities and potential policy solutions. Basically, I think there are three things that we can do to substantially improve our citizens’ quality of life: (1) enact good planning and zoning policy designed to protect our rural character and natural resources; (2) enforce regulatory ordinances; and (3) improve our transportation infrastructure.

The first priority is well underway at the planning commission. Over the past year, we have enacted a great deal of legislation designed to codify this community’s desire to protect and preserve its character. There is more to be done, but we are methodically implementing a very proactive agenda. Residents play a key role in identifying and prioritizing these actions. So, if you care about the future of your township, I highly encourage you to attend at least one planning commission meeting this year and make your voice heard.

Enforcing our regulatory ordinances, namely those affecting road ends and other public spaces, will require a change in administrative priority. Heretofore, elimination of public nuisances has not been a top concern of township or police officials. Lax enforcement has lead to increasingly bold behavior among scofflaws, which has resulted in a few bad apples spoiling it for everyone. I propose that we expand the position of ordinance enforcer to something akin to constable. We currently pay the county of Muskegon about $35,000 per year for a part-time, second-shift police officer to patrol our township a few days per week. We also pay a part-time ordinance enforcer about $10,000 per year; essentially to make sure people keep their yards clean. Why not combine the two jobs into one, full-time position and give that person real authority? Enforcement could be initially targeted at hot spots, like road ends, to clean up problems and improve the overall quality of life for our residents.

Improving our transportation infrastructure will also require a change in thinking. I am currently working with Supervisor Boughton and Trustee Bard to develop a transportation system policy for the township, which addresses unimproved roads, maintenance and future construction. It appears unrealistic to expect much financial help from the state or the road commission. So, we are taking the lead. Assuming this rather expensive responsibility will require changes in fiscal priorities — money spent on roads can’t be spent elsewhere. Which means we will have to make choices: spend less or raise taxes. This is where you come in.

The following are a few expenditures from our current budget. Are these services you value or would you prefer to spend this money on other priorities?

Township Assessor: contract position paid $48,000 per year; works two days per week; township provides computer, office space, materials, etc. OPTIONS: renegotiate the contract ($100/per hour is a bit generous), maybe one day per week would be sufficient; assign the task to the township supervisor (statutorily feasible, would probably require some training and a pay increase); or go back to using the county assessor.

Building inspection department: current budget $192,940 (approximately 20% of the township’s total budget; this department generates approximately $130,000 in revenue). There are two part-time inspectors to whom you currently pay salary, benefits and pension expenses, cell phone, mileage, education (state-required licenses and certifications) transportation, administrative overhead, and other related expenses; one inspector is paid a flat rate of 90% of the permit fee. It should also be noted that these inspectors provide their services to other municipalities, but Fruitland is the only township that pays anything beyond a percentage of the permit fee. Did you know you were so generous?
OPTIONS: renegotiate the inspector’s contracts, which expired in 2001; outsource the service, eliminate the overhead costs and maintain the revenue (the township would receive a flat rate of 10% of the total permit fee). An added benefit of outsourcing is that inspectors would be available 5-days per week, instead of two.

Other fiscal choices include your preference for full-time township office hours. Would you be willing to accept limited office hours if it meant freeing up more money for fixing roads or other priorities? In fact, you are already paying full-time money for part-time service. For example, you are currently paying your clerk about $50,000 in salary and benefits, while she takes classes at a local college. She is at her township office only a few hours per week. Maybe we don’t need a full-time clerk. This issue should at least be discussed as we approach the next election.

It’s time to reevaluate our priorities. I am casting no aspersions on our assessor or inspectors. However, I think we should start a community dialog to establish our goals and objectives for our government, and that these expectations should be the basis of our budgeting process. By setting clear priorities and budgeting accordingly, we will get the government we want: one that enhances the quality of life in our community. Write to me and let me know what you think about these ideas. Perhaps you have some suggestions of your own? Talk to me…I’m listening.

By now, you have probably heard a lot about the public hearing held at the July 18 board meeting. I have to admit it was a very interesting and instructive experience. The purpose of conducting a public hearing is to allow the citizens of the township to tell the board what they think about a particular issue. In the case of Clerk Janell Beard’s inflated mileage reports, the reaction was mixed. Some people thought the board did the right thing by sanctioning the clerk for padding her mileage. Others saw the Clerk as an innocent victim. One person said $241 in excess mileage wasn’t enough money to worry about. Others impeached the accuracy of MapQuest, arguing that it must be 110 miles to Grand Rapids if the clerk says so.

Although neither Beard nor her supporters ever produced any evidence that her mileage reports were accurate, their theme seemed to be that everything was fine on the board until I came along and started asking questions.

When I joined the board last year, I had no reason to believe that there were any problems. But after a few meetings, it became clear that the problems were significant. Meeting minutes were routinely inaccurate and never available for public inspection within the time required by law. Board actions that the clerk did not agree with were routinely ignored. Bills were paid that had not been approved by trustees, as required by township policy. A few people tried to ask questions, but they were quickly shut down or they just gave up when their questions went unanswered. And then I came along.

As soon as I started questioning the status quo, things started to go downhill between the clerk and me. The facts weren’t squaring with her view of reality and that made for more than a few uncomfortable moments. But rather than shaping up and following the law, she targeted me as the enemy, and that’s where the trouble began. What I have learned is that some citizens in the township would prefer that board members go along to get along. If questions make the clerk uncomfortable, don’t ask questions. It is better to be unified than honest. Do whatever it takes to avoid bad press — even if that means looking the other way when a public official is stealing from the taxpayers.

Well, I can’t look the other way. I won’t cover up a crime just to avoid bad press. I won’t be a part of an elected official’s delusion of victimhood. Citizens who regularly attend board meetings know that the board is unified against corruption. Votes, like the one to adopt the mileage committee’s recommendation that the clerk repay her ill-gotten gains, are typically 5 - 2. You should be proud of that. You have elected at least five people who are willing to stand up against corruption. It’s not easy. And none of us like bad press.

In his frequently cited (but little read) statement, Prosecutor Tony Tague blamed the township mileage policy, which did not require the clerk to take the shortest route to her meetings. That’s absurd, but that’s why he said he could not bring charges against her. Basically, Janell has figured out that even the prosecutor will look the other way if the crime in question is small. But when given a choice between harmony and honesty, I am going to choose honesty, whatever the political cost.

Lately, I have come to identify with Sisyphus, the Greek mythological figure forever doomed to push a huge stone up to the top of a hill. Just when he was about to thrust it over the crest, the weight of the stone would force it back down and poor Sisyphus would have to start the process all over again.

The stone in Fruitland Township is truth. Conducting business lawfully, in an open, honest manner has proved more difficult than I ever could have imagined thanks to one individual: Clerk Janell Beard. Some have dismissed the situation as a “battle of wills,” or “two women who can’t get along.” But those characterizations diminish the seriousness of the issue at stake, which is no less than the future of our township.

The office of clerk is the most powerful in township government. The clerk maintains custody of all township records, warrants for township checks, records and maintains township meeting minutes, keeps the township book of oaths, publishes meeting notices and board meeting minutes, keeps the voter registration file and conducts elections, chairs the township elections commission, keeps the township ordinance book, prepares financial statements, and delivers tax certificates to supervisor and county clerk. That’s a lot of power and a lot of responsibility.

At the very least, citizens expect their elected officials to follow the law. In this country, the law is supposed to be the great leveler; we are promised – and expect – equal justice under the law. But our clerk has consistently violated this sacred public trust. During my brief board tenure, Ms. Beard has submitted false mileage reimbursement statements, falsified board minutes (including changing motions), refused to carry out board actions that she doesn’t agree with, and generally thwarted board activity. Meetings have devolved into a cat-and-mouse game with Ms. Beard manipulating the agenda, motions and minutes. Trustees have performed admirably, identifying and diffusing most of her “bombs,” but we can’t catch everything and she knows it.

The controversy surrounding Ms. Beard’s mileage claims is a perfect example of these tactics at work. When trustees Bard and Bole first noticed something amiss on Beard’s reimbursement statements, they asked Supervisor Boughton for a special meeting to discuss their concerns; he refused. At the next regular board meeting, they asked the clerk for an explanation; Beard refused. Finally, they went to the attorney general with the evidence; the Michigan State Police investigated, but the Muskegon County Prosecutor, Tony Tague, refused to bring charges.

There is no doubt that Ms. Beard inflated her mileage claims – the evidence is clear and overwhelming. But she has managed to delay a public hearing of the facts for nearly a year. This tactic has served Ms. Beard well in the past; board members and the public would eventually tire from the effort of trying to get Beard to ‘fess up and she would get away with her crimes. This latest board, however, has proved to be the iceberg to Beard’s Titanic. Like a pitbull on the leg of injustice, trustees have continued to follow up and demand answers to inconvenient questions. Beard has countered their efforts by refusing to answer questions, hiring several attorneys, and suing taxpayers.

Democracy is a very fragile thing. It functions on public trust and the honesty of its elected officials who pledge to uphold its laws and faithfully execute the responsibilities of their office. Just as one person can make a difference, one person can also inflict a lot of damage. Such is the case in Fruitland Township. There is so much work that needs to be done – and could be done – if our clerk would follow the law and do her job. That’s all we’re asking. But it’s never going to happen. Just like Sisyphus, our stone always ends up at the bottom of the hill. It doesn’t have to be this way. How much longer will the citizens of Fruitland allow this to continue?

Her $1,500 illegal bonuses have been restored. Countless hours and thousands of taxpayer dollars have been wasted. But Clerk Beard still isn’t satisfied. She needs to extract one more pound of flesh. In a letter from her attorney presented to the Board last Tuesday, the Clerk stated that she would not drop her lawsuit against Fruitland Township taxpayers unless she gets a public apology or $3,000. Apparently, she has her price.

When asked to consider this option, I asked my fellow board members, “WWJD: What Would Janell Do?” Would Janell apologize? Would Janell pay blood money to an extortionist? Well, her track record is pretty consistent.

Let’s take her mileage reimbursement claims, for instance. Instead of acknowledging her egregiously inflated mileage reports, she hired an attorney and refused to answer any questions. She did, however, tell a Michigan State Police investigator that she missed her exit, was rerouted by construction, or picked up a friend on the way to a meeting. But, these excuses still leave 577 miles unaccounted for — that adds up to $241.08 in ill-gotten gains. (The Michigan Penal Code 750.175 establishes a $50 threshold for embezzlement by an elected official; punishable by 10 years in prison or a $5,000 fine.)

Anyone else would have immediately written a check to their employer and been done with it, but not our Janell. Her attitude is always consistent. Whether it’s providing timely, accurate meeting minutes, as required by the Michigan Open Meetings Act, or simply working within her allotted budget: she does what she wants, when she wants and will attempt to destroy anyone who dares to question her.

Unfortunately, she has met her match with a group of trustees who are neither intimidated nor bowed by the Clerk’s bullying tactics. With her self-inflicted wounds, she is slowly drifting toward irrelevancy, desperately trying to cling to power using every trick in her book. The train wreck is hard to watch. But, once illuminated, darkness has no choice but to disperse.

In the end, the Board did what Janell would do: no apology, no blood money. We’ll see if she drops her lawsuit against Fruitland taxpayers.