‘Attack ad’ part of disturbing pattern

Trustee Shevitz’s political “attack ad” in last week’s Landmark continues a disturbing pattern of abuse of anyone who disagrees with the RCA. It also grossly distorts my record and that of Trustee Sussman. Because Trustee Sussman is out of the country and unaware of Trustee Shevitz’s broadside, I would like to set the record straight.

Trustee Sussman and I have voted on two budgets prior to 2010. The 2008 and 2009 budgets included structural, sustainable cuts of approximately $350,000 and $420,000 respectively. Between 2007 and 2009, village expenditures increased an average of 2.75 percent per year. By contrast, and contrary to Trustee Shevitz’s assertion that it “maintains services without increasing spending,” Riverside’s 2010 budget increases expenditures 6.5 percent over 2009, eliminates funding for a police officer and a public works employee, substantially raises vehicle sticker fees, and defers over $350,000 in known obligations such as vehicle replacements and pension contributions. Hardly a cause for celebration.

During discussions on the 2008 and 2009 budgets, I repeatedly said that spending reserves and capital funds on daily operations was unsustainable, and I said the same thing about the 2010 budget. Trustee Sussman has been similarly consistent in her own views, and we both clearly voiced our concerns throughout the 2010 budget process. The notion that we waited until the last minute to make our objections known is nonsense.

As for his comment that the 2008 and 2009 budgets “left numerous capital improvement fund projects unfunded,” Trustee Shevitz either does not understand the budget process or he is intentionally attempting to mislead. The Capital Improvement Plan always includes unfunded projects (e.g., renovating the Youth Center) for which everyone knows funding does not currently exist. What the board majority did for 2010 was include funded projects in the CIP only to then refuse to fund them in the actual budget. This is the shell game to which I object. If we are not going to fund a capital project, and are instead going to spend that money on daily operations, why not just say so?

It is also untrue that Trustee Sussman and I are not working with the rest of the village board, although the RCA’s preoccupation with partisan politics does make it difficult at times. Trustee Sussman and I both have long records of working with numerous individuals and groups for the betterment of Riverside, and that will continue. If, however, by “working together” Trustee Shevitz means “taking orders” then he will be disappointed. Riverside deserves a truly deliberative board, not a rubber stamp.

Trustee Shevitz scoffs that Trustee Sussman “perceives” a structural issue with the Village’s deficits, as if that is open to question. Everyone, including his own RCA party, now agrees that Riverside’s deficits result from a structural disconnect between expenditures beyond the village’s control and revenues. Indeed, Trustee Shevitz himself finally acknowledged recently that the challenge facing our village is a lack of revenue.

Lastly, on a personal note, I find Trustee Shevitz’s characterization of Trustee Sussman shameful. Trustee Sussman has served Riverside in countless ways over many years through her volunteerism and public service. She is incapable of hypocrisy or grandstanding, and, having been in more than a few debates with her, I can attest that she is hardly “sheepish.” She has a brilliant, honest, and independent mind and would never hew to a “party line.” The simple fact is that Riverside is a better place because of her.

It is one thing to disagree over policy, quite another to personally attack good people because they refuse to quietly follow a bad course. Such attacks muddy us all and accomplish nothing.
Ben Sells
Riverside
Riverside Landmark 1/12/10