Goodrich – The petition language filed on Jan. 28 by village resident Greg Tankersley to recall the village council was approved on Feb. 14 by Judge Robert Weiss and Genesee County Clerk Michael Carr.
Tankersley must now get 199 signatures for the recall petitions in order to have a recall placed on the ballot.
The original petition, filed in October 2007 by Tankersley to oust four of the five Goodrich village councilmembers, was rejected due to a petition slip-up. However, when those petitions were rejected, Tankersley filed the new petition a few days later with similar language stating councilmembers failed to balance the budget without using previous budget surpluses.
Councilmembers Richard Horton, David Lucik, Pete Morey and Village Council President Edmund York are again named in the newest recall. Not named in the recall petition is Patricia Wartella.
On the Goodrich village finance committee for two years now, Norm Bass said the newest recall is a waste of money because two of the four councilmembers, David Lucik and Pete Morey, are up for re-election in November anyway.
‘This whole thing is ridiculous. If our citizens want to make a change, they can in November,? said Bass. ‘All of the guys on the village council are here to enhance the village of Goodrich and they don’t get paid very much for their efforts. They should be complimented, not recalled.?
Bass said he feels the people who are signing the petitions are not involved and should go to the meetings to listen to the real truth rather than listening to propaganda.
‘When councilmembers make their decisions as a board, they do this with respect to the taxpayers of the village. The four projects initiated by the board Tankersley has indicated as deficit spending,? said Bass. ‘These projects were in the works before the complete board was voted in and the village knew to save up for different projects, which was for the welfare of the community. This in turn has shown that the receipts have increased, impacting the overall reserves. The problem is, all of these projects had to be initiated this year or we would have lost contracts with the state.?
Bass said Tankersley is taking the statistics and not explaining fully the background on them and what the board is initiating. ‘Any ongoing business or government has to have different expenses that need to be taken in order for them to serve the people, and we cannot determine that as deficit spending, that is very much an untruth. Mr. Tankersley is taking his statistics and twisting them,? he said.
Tankersley said that by definition, a balanced budget is achieved when a municipality has the fiscal discipline to be able to equate revenues with expenditure over the business cycle.
‘In other words, a government budget is balanced when its income is equal to expenditures. What we have here is called deficit spending, not a balanced budget as the administration wants you to believe,? said Tankersley.
He said both the monthly treasurer’s report and the audit reinforce the fact that the village has, and continues to spend more money than comes in monthly, and this has gone on since late 2005.
‘The administration wants you to believe that the spending of the surpluses is due to four planned projects. The total cost to the village for these four projects when done, is $361,471, and to date not one of these is done and signed off. Yet from June 2005 through June 2007, the audits show the administration has spent $510,153 from the surplus to fuel the deficit spending,? said Tankersley.
Tankersley said these numbers are already seven months old, and by June of 2008 they will have spent $800,000 or more of the surplus.
‘It is evident that this money is not just for projects, but to fund the 30 percent tax cut we were given in late 2005. Yes, we were given a 30 percent tax cut, but I do not believe it was intended to be a short term tax cut while the administration used up our surpluses. Once it’s gone, there will be no choice. They will have to cut services or raise taxes,? said Tankersley.