Eric Haven, Continuing the Fight to Keep the “Old” in the “Old Guard”

Good grief. Once again, my personal email box was invaded by what the city manager refers to as a “message from Mayor Haven” but what I think of as more moronic meandering musings from the mind of the mayor. (Awesome alliteration there, eh?) And the city manager apparently thought “Looking Back & Looking Forward” was so nice, he had to send it to us twice. 🙄

What most people don’t realize (and Haven hopes you don’t ever figure out) is that his role as Clarkston mayor is mostly a nothingburger, which is a stark contrast to the role of the Detroit mayor, for example. The Detroit city charter creates what is referred to as a “strong mayor” form of government with two distinct branches – executive (led by the mayor) and legislative (led by the city council). The Detroit mayor has significant administrative responsibilities that include the ability to veto (reject) legislation passed by the city council, and you won’t ever find the Detroit mayor sitting at the city council table and voting at city council meetings. In contrast, the charter adopted by Clarkston voters created a “weak mayor” form of government that combines the legislative and executive responsibilities into only one branch – run by the city council – and the Clarkston charter expressly states that the mayor has absolutely no administrative role in city government. The Clarkston mayor gets one vote on legislative matters, the same as any other city council member, and he gets to chair city council meetings – so he’s more like the Detroit city council president than the Detroit mayor. To put it more succinctly, Haven can’t even order the city manager to purchase a different brand of toilet paper for the Depot Park bathrooms without the approval of the entire city council. (The mayor’s limited duties are described in Section 4.9 of the Charter, which I’ve linked to here: Clarkston Charter at page 14 of the pdf file.)

This is probably why we weren’t subjected to Haven’s uninteresting prose until the run-up to the 2021 November election, which was not-so-coincidentally at the same time that Haven was pushing his preferred two write-in candidates for city council. Only then did he start writing letters to the editor mirroring the campaign theme that he’d assigned to these two candidates, and it was also when he started abusing the weekly city manager’s email. And, as a special treat for Clarkston taxpayers, Haven prepared a letter for these two candidates to provide to voters that improperly encouraged people to contact Haven through his taxpayer-funded email and taxpayer-funded telephone number to further discuss these two candidates.

By now, it should be obvious to everyone that Haven’s recent spate of writing letters to the editor and glomming onto the city manager’s weekly email has nothing to do with any sense of concern for anyone in Clarkston. The only reason that this nonsense has continued is because Haven is in personal campaign mode. He’s up for re-election this year, so it’s important to him that you believe that he actually gives a rat’s patootie about you. Let’s be real – if Haven sincerely cared about anything beyond his own self-interest, he would have been writing letters containing helpful information during the worst parts of the pandemic in 2020 and 2021. That he didn’t do so tells you all you need to know about his current motivation. As your mama wisely told you, it’s what a man does – not what he says – that counts.

So, what about the most recent bits of flotsam that floated into our email boxes – twice? I’m not sure who wrote this latest missive, but I doubt it was Haven. Not because the writing was bad – though it most certainly was – but because Haven doesn’t write in this style. Still, since Haven adopted the letter as his own, he also must own all of the justifiable criticism that comes along with it.

The first rule of presentation is to know your audience, something that no one apparently told our mayor. The 2019 American Community Survey (which is part of the United States Census Bureau) tells us that out of a total estimated population of 988 people living in Clarkston, 461 of them are under 40 years of age; 235 of them are between 40 and 59 years old; and 292 of them are 60 and older. (Source: Census – Table Results). And yet, the mayor’s letter begins with an outdated cultural reference from 1985 to “Marty McFly,” leaving half of the city residents who are under 60 (and undoubtedly many who are over 60) wondering who the heck he was talking about. (I had to look it up too.)

I wouldn’t ever believe any of Haven’s historical claims without source citations, though I do find it odd that Haven reserved his admiration for someone who was apparently one of many “squatters” in the area (Linus Jacox) instead of the first person who lawfully purchased the property he lived on (Butler Holcomb). (The Lakeview Cemetery Restoration Project’s Facebook page provides more detail if you’re interested in learning more.) I appreciated Haven’s invitation to look back to a time when the geographical area now known as the City of the Village of Clarkston was a better place, despite apparently having bigger mosquitoes than we do now (according to Haven). While it’s true that people didn’t have streets or sidewalks back then, Haven and the rest of our city government have let them fall into disrepair and there is no money in the budget to fix them. Progress?

Haven has mentioned the “balanced budget” several times now. I think he likes to throw that phrase into his letters because he’s hoping that you will be fooled into thinking that this has something to do with the city’s leadership over financial matters – and perhaps he even wants you to believe that he had something to do with it personally. 😂

Alas, that’s not why we have a balanced budget at all. The only reason that Clarkston government has a balanced budget is because Michigan law forces them to have one. Section 141.435(2) of the Uniform Budgeting and Accounting Act does not allow the city to create a budget where expenses exceed the estimated amount of money coming in, and MCL 141.436(7) specifically forbids the city from creating (or modifying) the budget in a way that would cause expenses to exceed income. If at any point during the city’s fiscal year it becomes clear that the city is spending more than it’s taking in, MCL 141.437(2) demands that the city revise the budget so that overspending cannot occur. And if the city doesn’t do that, that would be a ground for initiating the process for the state to take the city’s financial management authority into the state’s hands and possibly appointing an emergency financial manager, as provided by MCL 141.1544(1)(j) of Michigan’s Local Financial Stability and Choice Act. (You can read the Uniform Budgeting and Accounting Act for yourself by going here: mcl-act-2-of-1968.pdf), and you can read MCL 141.1544(j) by going here: mcl-141-1544.pdf). When the money the government takes in is at least equal to the amount that it spends, the budget is “balanced.” If the city were to take in more money than it spends, then we would have a surplus. Surpluses are a good thing, but since our city government likes to spend every single available penny, I don’t think that we’ll ever see a budget surplus.

So, that’s the real reason why we have a “balanced budget.” Honestly, did you ever seriously believe that the same people who voted to spend tens of thousands of dollars on cutesy little street signs rather than on necessary street and sidewalk repair would ever behave in a fiscally responsible way if they weren’t forced to do so by law? I think the answer is obvious – no, they wouldn’t. So, the next time that Haven brags about a “balanced budget” in any of his letters, you now know that he’s playing you for a fool – because he’s banking on you not knowing anything about Michigan’s budgeting law.

I also found it amusing that Haven mashed all of the government and non-government organizations together into one paragraph. I’ve honestly not seen them all listed together like this before, but it further emphasizes a major criticism that many have about why Clarkston never had any business becoming a city thirty years ago.

As Haven unwittingly makes crystal clear, Clarkston runs on volunteer power. Why? Because we can’t afford a government that can provide adequate services to the people who are paying to support it without this legion of volunteers – nor was the city ever capable of doing so. Remember, we had to disband our local police department because we couldn’t afford to pay them. We can’t buy equipment for our DPW department without the use of federal grants. The city council “borrowed” hundreds of thousands of dollars from the taxpayer-funded water and sewer funds so they could build a new city hall for themselves that included a private office for the city manager. (The taxpayers were never given the chance to decide whether or not we wanted over $400,000 of our money spent this way, and when an actual emergency arose, our sewer bills were increased because the money for repair had been used to pay for city hall.) If it weren’t for grant money and paid parking revenue, we wouldn’t even be able to do the limited street repair that the city manages to get done (and paid parking was former Mayor Percival’s idea, not Haven’s). We pay almost the maximum amount of property tax (it would be the maximum amount if we weren’t getting a small credit for the library millage). In exchange for all of that tax money, taxpayers receive very few city services, and the services that are provided are mostly performed through contracts with private entities or Independence Township.

If all of this weren’t bad enough, Haven closes his letter with the insane suggestion that every individual Clarkston resident should adopt “Clarkston’s birthday” as a theme for our private events. Our private events! But, after thinking about this some more, and giving such a ridiculous request all of the consideration that it’s due, I have some ideas about how we could each personally incorporate a “Clarkston’s birthday” theme throughout the coming year. Instead of pinning the tail on the donkey at your kid’s next birthday party, perhaps the children could pin a clown nose on an image of the mayor. (Seems a fitting response to such a clownish request.) Maybe your dinner guests could guess the number of marbles in a jar, which could be symbolic of all of the times Clarkston government will hide information from you or violate the law during Clarkston’s upcoming birthday year. Or perhaps we could have a public birthday celebration in Depot Park that includes the mayor sitting on a dunk tank chair, and all of the money raised from that could be put toward badly needed (and unbudgeted) sidewalk and road repair. I’d be happy to donate for the chance to throw a ball or two (or ten or twenty).

The possibilities are endless, aren’t they? Happy birthday, Clarkston!

2 Replies to “Eric Haven, Continuing the Fight to Keep the “Old” in the “Old Guard””

  1. I agree that the charter makes the statement that the mayor has no administrative duties. Unfortunately, throughout the charter, the Mayor is assigned many duties that other city council members do not have. Is the budget an administrative duty? Is quelling civil unrest a duty? The charter contradicts itself over and over. The fact that the Mayor is elected separately from other council members indicates the position is ranked higher than a council member. Also, paid nearly 6x’s that of an elected or appointed council member.

    On one hand I don’t mind the currents Mayor’s editorials. However, on the other hand, it seems that the use of this means of communicating with the public can be fishy in regards to campaigning.

    Should all members of the council have the right to utilize this means of “campaigning”? What about those citizens who want to and engage in a run for office? Should they be allowed to reach all those who are signed up to receive these email updates? I’d say yes however; it would get messy I’m sure. The city manager does a great job with this tool that he created. It is informative and needs to continue to be a tool that he alone uses. There are other means for the Mayor and others to reach their public. Utilize the news, city council meetings which the position controls, add the item to the agenda, at the very least the mayor can utilize the 3 min public comments.

    Back to duties: each mayor will engage the office differently. Attending countless meetings if they are inclined. Making themselves available to the public via walks and chats. Pitching in doing “stuff” others may feel might be beneath them such as picking up trash and pulling weeds. The mayor’s position is not simply ceremonial. It is engagement in all Facets of city operations. Some will engage more than others.

    I’am, by no means, judging the current mayor or any of the past mayors. They alone signed up to “volunteer” for the position. They did the work that got them elected and they will attempt to make some improvements while they are in office. We may not agree with them and that’s ok. However, we can hold them accountable. This is primarily done via the council and the public input. I have seen many improvements that the current mayor has championed. I have seen missteps as well. They are expected. I will give credit where due and I will voice misgivings when actions warrant them.

    As for the village becoming a city; that fight is over 30 years old. We are and we will remain a city most likely for another 30 years.

  2. OK, let’s unpack the duties of the mayor, taken from the charter:

    1. S/he shall preside at all meetings of the Council.

    Developing the agenda, controlling the flow, etc. Just like the president of the Detroit city council does, except our mayor apparently needs the taxpayers to pay the city attorney to attend every meeting now just so he can ask the attorney over and over and over again whether there should be a voice vote or a roll call on any given item. Perhaps the mayor could save us some legal services money and ask for a roll call vote for all items.

    2. Shall speak and vote at such meetings as any other Council member.

    The operative phrase there is “as any other council member.” The charter clearly considers the mayor to be a council member with some additional meeting duties. Sort of like council member plus.

    3. Shall be recognized as the Chief Executive Officer of the City and as head of the city government for all ceremonial purposes.

    Need someone to ride in your parade? Call the mayor.

    4. Shall have no administrative duties.

    Correct. The chief administrative officer of the city is the city manager, whether the mayors like it or not.

    5. Shall be a conservator of the peace.

    Honestly, no clue how to construe this phrase in a modern context, since it apparently originated in connection with the English monarchy. I’m guessing someone copied and pasted this text from some other charter because s/he thought it looked nice.

    6. May exercise within the City the powers conferred upon sheriffs to suppress riot and disorder.

    Good luck with this one. My guess is that any mayor who perceived him/herself as having this ability – without any additional state or federal authorization and lacking the credentials and training of a sworn law enforcement officer – would at the very least get the one-finger salute. And if there were riot and disorder, I’m guessing that the mayor would be hiding under a desk somewhere and dialing 9-1-1.

    7. Shall have authority to command the assistance of all able-bodied citizens to aid in the enforcement of the ordinances of the City and to suppress riot and disorder.

    Good luck with this one – we don’t have to listen. See above comment, especially the part about the lack of state or federal authority.

    8. Shall be empowered as the conservator of public health, safety and welfare in cases of natural or manmade calamity as provided hereinafter by ordinance.

    So, without an ordinance – which is under the authority of the city council – there is no independent authority for the mayor on these matters. But one would think that at the very least, the current mayor would have been providing some communication during the COVID lockdowns since city hall was also locked down and the council had authorized remote meetings. As I said in the post, I believe that the reason the current mayor couldn’t be bothered was because it didn’t further his personal ambition.

    And to your point, yes, the budget is an administrative function. The charter doesn’t provide the mayor with any specific responsibility with regard to the budget. It’s primarily within the purview of the city manager to prepare and present (with assistance) and for the council to approve. In fact, other than the ability to suggest appointments and some signing authority, the mayor isn’t required to do very much at all outside of city council meetings.

    As for compensation, I think it’s important to provide the numbers rather than looking at it in terms of multiples. Council members receive $25 per meeting attended. The mayor receives a flat rate of $3,850 per year, prorated for the months served during the year, whether or not s/he shows up. Apparently, the voters believed that running city council meetings and showing up to sign things was worth a few extra bucks, but putting things in context, high school kids working at McDonalds make more than this.

    If the mayor wants to pick up trash, walk around town, shake hands, and go to all or most city meetings, s/he is certainly entitled to do that. But doing so does not distinguish the mayor from any city council member – because they are all free to do the exact same thing.

    I realize that this isn’t a popular position to take among current and former mayors who view the role of the mayor more expansively, but like it or not, the voters were pretty specific about what role they wanted the mayor to play when they adopted the charter.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Discover more from Clarkston Secrets

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading