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

Trustees Sussman and Sells have served arduously on behalf of the residents with honesty, integrity and openness. Their message is not a political message, but one of true concern for the well-being of the future of Riverside.

Trustees Sussman and Sells are being accused of “grandstanding” during the 2010 budget debate. If you call the questioning of not addressing the village budget’s structural problem as “grandstanding,” I will side with integrity. If you call the questioning of $360,000 of deferred obligations as savings, I will side with honesty. If you call the questioning of not even having a short-term plan in place, I will side with openness.

The 2010 budget is the first budget in the last three years where no sustainable, structural expense reductions have occurred. The 2008 and 2009 budgets that trustees Sussman and Sells participated in contained over $750,000 in sustainable, year-over-year expense reductions.

The real “grandstanding” is the failure of the RCA board majority to address the severity of the financial issues that the village faces. After all, this issue will require tough actions and may not fit into their party message.

Mark Shevitz’s editorial was nothing more than a politically motivated attack on trustees Sussman and Sells, two potential candidates in the 2011 election who stand in the RCA’s way to a super majority.

When Mark Shevitz and the RCA say the election is over, that means the election is in full swing. The RCA board majority has taken every step possible to marginalize trustees Sussman and Sells and the worst is probably yet to come.

I encourage everyone to participate and ask for accountability. There will be a strategic planning workshop in the coming weeks that will shape Riverside’s future economic fate. Be an active participant in your community’s future.

The village’s future should not be part of a political game or experiment. Chicago-style political thuggery and intimidation does not belong in Riverside. I hope that Mark Shevitz and the rest of the board majority will realize that Riverside’s future will be decided by their actions during the remainder of their tenure in office.

The message is obviously clear to everyone but the Board majority. Stop marketing the product. The residents of Riverside know that these are difficult times and we need our elected officials to level and be honest with us. We need you to take the difficult but necessary steps to right the ship. Everyone knows there will be pain. Everyone knows that it will come at a cost. Please stop trying to sell the empty campaign message – everyone knows the election is over but you.

Tony Miezio
Riverside
Riverside Landmark 1/12/2010

As a current trustee, I am compelled to respond with the facts. I also want to state that I reject the implication that I or any member of the Riverside Board of Trustees have done anything improper.

The largest current contract the village has is for our paramedic services. This contract, with PSSI, is for $500,000. Paramedic assistance is the most personal, sensitive and potentially lifesaving service provided to our community.

The board evaluated all similar providers in the area. Data from surrounding communities on services and costs were analyzed. Performance of our current provider and past experience with a different provider were evaluated. The decision to hire PSSI was based on the total value of the services provided to the village – a combination of cost, service offerings, and quality of services. All of this was done transparently – across several televised and recorded meetings.

In addition, the village of Riverside is an active member of state and regional purchasing organizations. These organizations operate on our behalf by aggregating bids across a number of municipalities. Potential suppliers bid on the items, offering our village significant savings that might not otherwise be available to us due to our small size.

This is obviously a competitive bidding process, with the results transparent to all. These decisions and the cost analyses for Riverside occur at televised and recorded village board meetings.

And lastly, sometimes there is only one supplier available to us. This is the case with our unique gas lamps and with some of our sophisticated public safety equipment. Here, as well, the board publicly evaluates the before making a decision.

I request that the RCA stop the deliberate misrepresentation of what has occurred and the backdoor accusations of improprieties by me and other trustees. Residents of the village should not tolerate such behavior from any candidate for the board.

Riverside Landmark 3/11
Jean Sussman
Riverside
Jean Sussman is a Riverside village trustee.

Her letter states that the residents cannot currently be heard or have no access to public meetings or government documents. The facts are as follows:

Board meeting minutes, packets, and budget data has been publicly available at the Riverside Library for years.

Board meetings are broadcast, recorded and rebroadcast for later viewing by the public.

With the advancement of technology and the village’s access to such technology, even greater and more detailed documentation is posted through the village Web site (board packets, budgets, audits, minutes, financials, general announcements, etc.)

For over a decade, the board has assured public input at its regular board meetings. I watch them regularly and will say that no citizen has ever been denied the opportunity to express themselves in a respectful manner.

In fact several times, I have witnessed President Wiaduck managing several citizen outbursts and disruptions, including candidates of the RCA, speaking at will and disrupting the regular deliberations.

I commend the village board for displaying a leadership approach in transparency to the citizens of Riverside. This is not the case in all townships.

The village government’s has also implemented a comprehensive ethics ordinance, which insures that no elected officials, their families, nor employees receive improper benefit from village spending.

Further, to the issue of financial transparency, Riverside has achieved a very exclusive distinction from the Government Finance Officers Association which rewards the highest standards of financial reporting and transparency.

Riverside received a Certificate of Achievement in Financial Reporting Award from the GFOA for 2007, and has achieved this recognition for 17 times since 1989.

Only 282 of 32,000 municipal townships with a population below 10,000 achieve this certificate, which places Riverside in the top 1 percent.

If the citizens of Riverside seek transparency, honesty and plain talk in government please do not look to the RCA, a party which spins myths and inaccuracies to further their campaign.

The Riverside Party of Smith, Lesniak, Miezio and Navarro will secure transparency building upon these foundations. Furthermore, as technology develops, the Riverside Party will improve upon a system already displaying its commitment to honest, open government.

Maria Cerrone
Riverside

Riverside has attained this level of recognition 17 times in the last two decades. The GFOA’s review process consists of evaluating the village’s comprehensive annual fiscal report (CAFR) based upon a 75-page checklist for adherence to generally accepted accounting principles, legal requirements, transparency, readability and efficient organization.

Only 282 of 32,070 government units with a population of less that 10,000, or 0.88 percent, receive this award.

At the heart of each CAFR is an independent auditor’s report for the year. In addition to a review of the village’s financial records, each audit also includes a “fraud risk assessment” conducted separately by the auditor.

Riverside’s CAFRs for the last five years (all award winners) are readily available at the library or online.

Riverside can take pride in the fact that not only are its books well kept, with clarity and integrity, but this is a nationally recognized achievement that few communities attain.

Kevin F. Smith
Riverside