Cultures Clash At Township Board Meeting

The necessary disclaimer: The views expressed here are my own, and do not represent the views of Patch in any way. I do not work for Patch, and I do not work for any politician, campaign, or political party. These opinions are simply my opinions as a Plymouth Township resident.

I have written political op-eds for roughly 5 years prior to the 2016 primary. The content I published was mainly of a local nature, and centered upon the Plymouth Township Board of Trustees. I moved away from politics after the 2016 primary, but with many important issues facing our Board of Trustees, I feel compelled to highlight some of the issues, and maybe share an opinion or two with you.

As most of you know, there was in the words of the Plymouth Observer, an historic election in Plymouth Township back in 2016, and voters elected 5 brand new board members, including a new Supervisor, Clerk, and Treasurer. The lone incumbents elected, were Trustee Bob Doroshewitz, and Trustee Chuck Curmi.

That primary election was a complete rebuke of the previous regime. The Plymouth Township voters rejected the toxic culture of that board, the way they publicly treated their constituents, and more importantly, the way they had a complete disregard for what the priorities of a municipal should be.

Make no mistake, the 2016 primary was a referendum on public safety. Supervisor Kurt Heise ran on this issue, and he brought a slate of candidates with him, and they won in an absolute landslide. To be clear, our public safety infrastructure was a complete disaster. Supervisor Heise, and the new board inherited an aging fleet of firetrucks, ambulances, and equipment. They also inherited legacy cost issues that had not been properly addressed, and that is where we sit today.

It is now time for this board of trustees to deal with the problems left by the previous regime, and anyone who thought that they were going to be able to wave a magic wand, and make these problems disappear without a little pain, wasn't thinking the problem through. I knew when I cast my vote, that there was going to be a cost associated with fixing our public safety infrastructure. I was pretty darn sure we would be seeing a public safety millage brought to the voters at some point. I was right, and most of the folks I speak with, agreed with me then, and they agree with me now.

This brings us up to speed, and to the July 10th meeting of the Plymouth Township Board of Trustees. They voted to put a public safety millage on the ballot on November 6^th of this year. It will be a 1.2 mill tax increase to fund the public safety operations for Plymouth Township. This includes the police department as well as the fire department.

Having something of this magnitude come before the board of trustees, I chose to attend the meeting, and hear discussion, both in favor of the millage, and against. I found some interesting things, and I'd like to share some of my opinions about not only the millage, but also the state of this board, a year and a half into their terms.

As for the millage, it seems that Treasurer Clinton did exhaustive research on where this township stands financially, and what the township is facing as far as replacing aging infrastructure, as well as our financial commitments as far as legacy costs go. The answers are very disturbing.

We have three firetrucks (the whole fleet) that are dangerously close to being beyond their usefulness for all practical purposes. They are all roughly 20 to 30 years old, and the cost of fixing the things that constantly go wrong with such an old fleet is becoming untenable. This is what the previous administration left us with. They never had a process for replacing vehicles, and upgrading safety equipment.

We had a fire station that the previous administration closed, leaving a very populated part of the township under-served. It goes without saying that when the previous administration closed the fire station, they also reduced the amount of firefighters we have to protect our township. In a joint agreement with Northville Township, the new administration re-opened the fire station, and it is staffed by both Plymouth Township, and Northville Township firefighters. This agreement makes both communities safer, and reduces the cost for Plymouth Township to operate and staff that station.

The previous administration also had no coherent plan to pay the legacy costs with regards to public safety. According to the reporting of Don Howard at the Plymouth Eagle, Treasurer Clinton, told the board that “Unless action is taken, the general fund will be unable to handle the legacy costs, and the OPED (Other Post Employment Benefits) obligations, and will be exhausted in just five years.” He further stated that “We haven't prepared for the future, and that is why we are here.”

Trustee Dempsey hit the nail on the head when he stated about this millage, as it relates to funding pension, and OPEB that “this is taking care of the sins of the past, there is no pot of money, there is no savings account, there's no pot to earn this money to pay as you go.” There was not one objection from one board member to that statement. We are now paying for the sins of the past administration.

It doesn't take a Philadelphia lawyer to figure out who is responsible for these sins either. It falls directly on the shoulders of the previous administration, and two of those members sit on this current board. Those two members are Trustee Robert Doroshewitz, and Trustee Chuck Curmi. Interestingly enough, those are the two members who argued the loudest about putting this millage on the ballot. One would think that they would be more amenable to the efforts made to fix a mess that they helped create.

The curious thing is that while Trustee Doroshewitz talked, acted, and even stated that he was probably going to be a no vote, he surprised most folks in the audience by voting yes. It could be that all the talk about the sins of the previous administration guilted him into a yes vote, it could be that every single public comment on the issue was in favor of the millage being brought to the voters, or it could be that he just likes to hear himself debate every single issue that comes before the board. As far as I know, he is a non practicing lawyer, so maybe this is his way of practicing what he learned in college. I have no idea what was going on in the man's head, but eventually, he relented, and voted yes on the issue.

That brings us to the no votes. Trustee Jack Dempsey explained his no vote clearly, and even though I disagree with that vote, I am inclined to give him a pass on it, and not be too critical. Trustee Dempsey basically stated that he supports the measures taken to pay pension and healthcare obligations, as well as upgrading police and fire vehicles, but he did not like the language with regards to salary adjustments for public safety services. I disagree with him on this last thing. My belief is that annual 2% pay increases for the men and women who are running into danger, while we are running away from it, is a fair deal. I also believe that if we want to have the best, and most qualified people keeping us safe, we have to be competitive as far as salary is concerned. My guess, and it's only a guess, is that if this was going to be a vote where Mr. Dempsey was going to be the tiebreaker, he would have put aside his differences, and voted yes. I could be wrong, but that is my opinion after carefully listening to his comments.

Trustee Curmi on the other hand was a hard guy to figure out, and by that, I mean that I couldn't figure out why he would vote no seeing as how he is partly responsible for this mess. I had an even harder time understanding the rational for his no vote. As near as I can figure, Mr. Curmi clearly agrees that the previous administration was doing everything correctly as far as public safety is concerned, because he spent a fair amount of his time seemingly defending their decisions. And that my friends, is hard to figure out.

Mr. Curmi began with his standard approach of demanding further studies, demanding spreadsheets, demanding line items, and a laundry list of other stuff. He has been doing this for as long as I have been attending meetings if he has an issue with a particular item. Five years ago, I thought it was refreshing for a board member to demand this information, but as I attended more meetings, I came to a different conclusion. This guy walks into meetings, and I honestly do not think he reads his board packet until he takes his seat at the table. He makes roughly $1,000 a month, and he asks questions that even a schlub like me can answer. It is maddening, because it's a waste of everybody's time to listen to him drone on, and ask ridiculous questions. One great example is that he couldn't seem to understand why it was costing so little for the first new firetruck when looking at a document showing future costs. It seems he forgot about the $400,000 that Rep. Noble delivered to the township from the state budget to help pay for this firetruck. By the way, Thank You Rep. Noble!

Mr. Curmi then went on to question Treasurer Clinton about how the township is going to pay for firetrucks and ambulances in the future. Treasurer Clinton laid out a long term plan to finance and replace our fleet. That is what smart municipalities do. Trustee Curmi seemed to have a problem with that, and stated “That is different from Plymouth Township, in the past, we have paid for ambulances and firetrucks with cash in lump sum.”

Upon hearing this, I was about to come out of my seat and start screaming, but Trustee Gary Heitman saved me by pointing out that, “ We haven't bought one of em in 20 years.” And Trustee Curmi's angry response? “Yeah we bought em for cash, every single one of them.” Yes, Mr. Curmi was probably right. They paid cash for every single one of them. The problem is that I didn't have one gray hair in my head back when they were paying cash for them! They are old Mr. Curmi! They belong on the Andy Griffith show!In one short sentence, Trustee Heitman nailed it. “We haven't bought one of them in 20 years.” He clarified why we are in the financial fix we are in. Complete and total lack of planning for the future. No vehicle replacement plan, no safety equipment replacement plan, no plan for legacy costs, and Chuck Curmi is still clinging to that mentality. But by gosh, we paid cash for them firetrucks!

In the end, I think that Treasurer Clinton might have brought Trustee Doroshewitz from a no vote, to a yes vote by explaining four incontrovertible facts. Treasurer Clinton stated that “I know four things for sure.”

1. “I know that we're going to have to spend more money real fast on pensions.”
2. “I know that we're going to have to spend more money real fast on OPEB.”
3. “I know that we have an antiquated fleet of public safety vehicles that need to be refreshed.”

4. “I know that if you want a qualified public safety staff, you are going to have to pay them a reasonable salary adjustment on an annual basis.

Bottom line, at the end of everything, the vote was 5-2, to approve the language of the public safety millage that will be on the ballot in November for the people in this township to decide.

Now for a few thoughts about this board as it sits, a year and a half into their terms. As I said earlier, we elected 5 brand new board members, and brought back two previous board members. Folks in Plymouth Township talked often of the toxic environment of the old regime, and they wanted a new culture. In my opinion, the 5 new board members have delivered on that new culture. Unfortunately, the two veterans seem to be stuck in the old culture.

I saw at this meeting, five board members that treated this as a business meeting. They were professional, they were thoughtful, and they came prepared. On the other hand, I saw two board members who seemed stuck in the old culture, of the previous regime.

What I saw from Trustee Doroshewitz was a guy who sometimes unnecessarily gets into spats with the supervisor over meaningless issues, and he has done this with other members of this board in previous meetings. I see in Mr. Doroshewitz a guy who just seems to like to argue for the sake of arguing. I am pretty sure, he will respond that it is just discussion, or maybe he is just playing devil's advocate. I'll let you figure that one out.

I also see this from him on social media as well, and I don't like it, and want to quickly address it. I understand that he is basically a “Never Trumper” and that is absolutely his right to have this opinion, but I would urge him to understand that he represents this board, and his constituents every single day, in everything he says. He signed on for this voluntarily, and when he spews rhetoric which I think is at the very least unhelpful, it feeds the current hatred between folks on either side of the political spectrum. There are seven board members on this board, and he is the only one I see doing this.

I take no pleasure in saying this, because I know that deep down, where it absolutely counts, Robert Jacob Doroshewitz is a good and decent man. I have witnessed him do many good deeds for his community through the years, and more importantly, he does most of them quietly, and without fanfare. As far as the board of trustees goes though, I think it is the old culture he seems to sometimes get stuck in, but I also think he has the township's people in his heart when he ultimately casts his votes, and at the end of the day, that's all that really counts.

What I saw from Trustee Curmi is in my opinion, much worse. He seems to absolutely embrace the culture of the old board. He engages in “gotcha questions” and then mugs for the audience when he thinks he got a zinger in. I saw this on more than one occasion. Worse yet, he did a decent impression of Big Ron Edwards when he decided to interrupt, and engage a member of the public as she was simply trying to make a public comment on her feelings about this issue. She made a small error when speaking about the previous millage, so he decided it was his place to interrupt her a couple of times, correct her, than smirk at her once he was done with her. There is a proper way to treat your constituents when they are trying to express their feelings at a public, televised meeting. First, you actually let them finish their thought, then if you really feel the need, respectfully correct any misstatements. Do not interrupt them, do not talk down to them, and for cripes sake, don't smirk at them because you were right, and they were wrong. It made Mr. Curmi look small, and there is no place for that at a Plymouth Township Board of Trustees meeting. Mr. Curmi would be wise to make an apology to this woman at the next meeting. I seriously doubt we will see that though, because the man simply has too big an ego for that.

Further, it is my opinion that Mr. Curmi feels like he should have been the one that folks wanted for their Township Supervisor, and I think he is still bitter about that. I also think he has his heart set on running against Supervisor Heise in 2020. I think in his mind, he feels like he is entitled to that seat, and I see it in the way he acts during meetings.

Mr. Curmi once told me that the Supervisor, Clerk, and Treasurer jobs are the easiest jobs in the township. I thought to myself that was probably his ego talking, with maybe a little petty jealousy mixed in as well. Who knows? Maybe back in the previous regime he might be correct, but not in today's world. In today's world, you have the Supervisor, the Treasurer, the Clerk, and their staffs, working their tails off to correct the sins of the past, and you have Chuck Curmi being the fly in the ointment, trying to differentiate himself in order to maybe give him a platform to run on in the primary. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe it's just an inability to adapt to the new culture of this board. Maybe a combination of both. Either way, it is not helpful.

My advice to Mr. Curmi? Give up on the whole supervisor thing, and if you want to be elected as a Trustee again, start with actually reading your board packet when you get it. When you go to a meeting, check your ego at the door, treat the work that your fellow board members do with respect, and above all else, treat your constituents with a modicum of respect, even when you don't agree with their opinion.

All in all though, I like this board that the folks in Plymouth Township elected. For the most part, they are pulling in the same direction, and despite the criticisms I have shared, I have great confidence in this board to make all of us proud to live here in the township for years to come...