Mayor's comments way over the top

I was going to title this article "Mayor Spanks Resident", but I decided not to.

The Woodstock City Council met tonight. During the Public Comment period I addressed the Council about the City's failure to respond to what I considered a legitimate and polite inquiry. In my remarks I asked why applicable permit and Impact fees had not been paid, and why permits had not been issued, for a remodeling project on a house within the City Limits.

In my remarks I identified the address but not the name of the resident. I specifically stated that I had relied on information from the City about the applicability of Impact Fees.

I asked why no permits for electrical and plumbing work had been issued. Why there had been no inspections. Why no new Certificate of Occupancy had been issued. I asked whether new new owner of the property, which sold on July 12, would be responsible for the fees or if the property owner at the time of remodeling would be assessed.

I stated how I knew there had been no permits issued; I had examined the property file at City Hall. Whatever prompted my inquiry is not relevant.

I stated that I had sent an email on July 27, which had not been answered. I hand-delivered a letter on August 1, and I had received no response. I emailed again on September 4 and received no response. On September 9 I was told that my August 1st letter was "upstairs", meaning on the second floor where the Mayor's office is located.

At the conclusion of my remarks Mayor Sager launched in a public spanking and attacked me verbally, improperly using the authority of his office as Mayor in an attempt to humiliate me. Fortunately, I don't cower in the face of a bully's attack. The mayor had his response prepared and didn't like at all that I had asked questions about the home of a "highly-regarded public employee". He seemed to be reading from his notes as he attacked me.

Then he invited members of the City Council to pile on. Councilman Ahrens was first, and he said that he considered my questions about the issue to be slander. He accused me of making false statements.

Every one of my statements in my inquiry was fact-based. The information came right out of the City's property file, both what was in the file and what was conspicuous by its absence.

Then Councilman Turner piled on, accusing me of costing the City tens of thousands of dollars in time to handle my FOIA requests. He mentioned my requests had been "incredibly burdensome" to the staff.

At that point I got tired of being hammered and stated that I had gathered my information through a FOIA request. When the Mayor insisted that they would speak and I would not, I objected.

Mayor Sager appeared visibly upset and announced a recess (sort of like picking up your marbles and going home, if you can't get your own way), and he led most of the Council away from their seats into his office behind the chamber.

I wonder what they talked about back there. If they talked about any City business, such as my remarks, then they violated the Open Meetings Act, since five of the seven were in that office.

The lawyer from Rich Flood's office, Ruth (her last name was not given during the meeting), said that Impact Fees are not due on remodeling, only on new construction. The Mayor, members of the Council and she must have not heard my early statement that I had been told by staff at the Community Development Office that Impact Fees are collectable on remodels.

If they aren't, why didn't Mayor Sager respond to my emails of July 27 and September 4 and say so? Most of the issue could have been cleared up early in August through a prompt, business-like reply. Does he think that, since he is King (errr, Mayor), then he doesn't have to be concerned with responding to lowly subjects of the kingdom?

Nothing in the Roberts Rules of Order grants any privilege to a member of a public body to verbally berate a resident who questions their processes.

I, for one, refuse to accept insults tossed at me by people in power (in their own minds, at least).

I would like to thank Council members Saladin, Thompson, Larson and Dillon for not piling on. I wonder if they knew I was right. I hope you don't get spanked for not supporting the other three.

The Mayor announced that no further action would be taken. I guess that means that the City won't collect double the permit fees for remodeling, plan review, electrical, plumbing and HVAC; won't inspect electrical and plumbing work; and won't require the new Certificate of Occupancy called for in the City Code.

The City's own booklet, The Permit Process, warns residents about not getting permits. On Page 1 it reads, "Furthermore, if they were to suffer a loss due to fire or a structural incident, their insurance carrier may require documentation for the work that may have caused the loss was completed under a building permit and that the work was inspected by a qualified individual."

If I were the new owner at 1341 Winslow Circle, I think I'd be conferring with my insurance agent, real estate agent and attorney to confirm that everything is in order.