Board Reduces Village Manager Powers
By a vote of 4-2, the Montgomery Village Board took back much of the village manager's authority Tuesday night. While some praised the move, others called it a step backward.
By a 4-2 vote on Tuesday night, Montgomery trustees significantly changed the way village government is run.
After months of talking about it, the Village Board voted to reduce the authority of the village manager, approving an ordinance that eliminates the manager’s ability to hire and fire employees, give raises or cut pay, and add or remove department heads without board approval.
The village manager also now must provide regular evaluations of all employees to the board, and inform the board of any grievances filed by union employees within five days of receiving them.
On top of that, the title of the office has been changed to village administrator, which some trustees see as significant, but Village Attorney Steve Andersson said is merely cosmetic, and has no bearing on the duties of the office. Additionally, Andersson said, since Village Manager Anne Marie Gaura was hired under that title, it will remain until the end of her current contract, in May 2013.
Trustees Matt Brolley and Denny Lee voted against the changes, and tried to spark debate about them during the meeting. But the four trustees in favor remained largely silent, and Trustee Stan Bond, who drafted the new ordinance (with subsequent changes from Heinz and Kaczmarek), said the absence of discussion was reflective of the time the board has already spent on this issue.
“We’ve been talking about this for 90 days,” he said. “We talked about it in governance training (in June). It’s not that it hasn’t been discussed. And I don’t think that anything could have been said that would have made the vote unanimous.”
Trustee Bill Keck said it had been more than a decade since the ordinance was first approved, and it was time to revisit it.
But Lee said some of the changes voted on Tuesday night were a surprise to him. Some, such as the requirement to provide grievances from union employees, were added to the ordinance between meetings, and not distributed to trustees until late last week.
Lee called the changes “micromanaging at best,” and said they hearken back to an earlier time, when trustees ran the village department by department—a system, he said, that Montgomery has outgrown.
Brolley, as well, called the changes a “step backwards,” and said he felt there was not enough discussion on the issue. Though Trustee Pete Heinz was correct when he said board members are not legally required to justify their votes, Brolley said the board does answer to 18,000 people, and owes them an explanation.
“Everyone talks about this being a more transparent process, and this was the opposite of that,” he said.
In voting against the ordinance, Brolley said the changes would make it difficult for Montgomery to hire a professional manager in the future. He said the village would “officially become a resume builder for recent college graduates, or perhaps a disgraced individual looking to rebuild a career.”
Brolley asked whether any incidents in particular prompted the changes, and he received no answer during the meeting. Bond said afterward that the issue was not with Gaura, but with the “balance of power between the board and the manager.”
“It’s not about Anne,” he said. ‘”It’s about that position, and what relationship we have with that position, and what authority we reserve for ourselves.”
Gaura declined to comment on the changes.
Before the vote, trustees heard from several residents, most of them against the changes. Steve Jungermann questioned whether “the problem lies not with the village manager, but with the trustees,” and Ryan Alltop said the board would be micromanaging under the new rules, and “there are a lot more important things going on.”
But Marjorie Myers gave her support to the changes, and suggested the board take a look at eliminating vehicle allowances for employees as well.
Not included in this ordinance was a proposal to change the manager’s spending authority. Currently, the manager is allowed to enter into contracts of $10,000 or less without board approval. That authority is covered by a separate ordinance, and will be discussed in an upcoming meeting, Bond said.
While some trustees, like Bond and Kaczmarek, would like to see that spending limit reduced to as little as $2,000, Brolley wants to see it increased to $20,000, with a stipulation that three quotes be obtained for contracts over $10,000.
Bond said he hopes Gaura and the board can work together under the new balance of power, but said if that proves impossible, “we will look for someone who can.” He said the residents of Montgomery should be proud of their elected officials for shouldering more of the responsibility of village government.
“The board made a huge transformation tonight,” he said.
ScottC
7:14 am on Wednesday, August 31, 2011
I think this could have been crafted better. Give the manager to hire and fire employees that are not department heads. Give the board the authority to hire and fire higher ranking officials. Let the manager manage that is what they are paid to do, this includes entering into contacts and having signature authority up to 15K.
Tina Conley
8:00 am on Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Sounds a lot like Oswego
Jake
8:06 am on Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Sad day for the Village of Montgomery. This new regime is off to a GREAT start. Taking powers away from the Village Manager? What's next??? Driving business away from Montgomery? Trustees already complain that meetings are too long now because of slashing other meetings. I can only image how these meetings are going to go now. I can honestly say, I really don't want to hear a single complaint from any of them about how long the meetings are now. Guess these trustees that voted yes can't handle "delegating" authority to others. Lee said it best "micromanaging." As a lifelong resident of Montgomery, the ole saying goes true.....One step forward, two steps back. Thanks "yes voting" trustees!
Jeanne
9:21 am on Wednesday, August 31, 2011
After having served with 4 of these trustees for a lot of years I'm sad to say that the problem is not with the title of the position but rather with who is currently serving in that position. 3 of these trustees have not liked Anne Marie for years and I truly believe are intimidated by the fact that she is a female and is better educated than they are. I believe that if there was a male in this position none of this would have happened. I've witnessed it first hand. Anne Marie has been nothing but loyal and hardworking during her time with the village and was one of the key reasons we experienced the growth and prosperity we did during the good times. Unfortunately the economy took it's toll. Anne Marie is also very highly respected by all of the surrounding communities as well as the groups and organizations she has been involved with. This has also reflected well on the image of Montgomery. Unfortunately Montgomery will now be nothing more than a laughing stock. We are a no longer a community of 5000 people and can't function as such. It's unfortunate that these individuals have let their personal egos interfere with running our village.
KEVIN BROWN
1:15 pm on Wednesday, August 31, 2011
It would not of made a difference what gender the village administrator/mgr is it was decided that the role was not fitting the needs of the current village and the residence of the village were not happy with that contract employee was doing in thier role with the village.
Dock Ellis
9:57 am on Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Totally ridiculous. What a shame that these people think they can micromanage a government. That's the whole point of a village manager. Why are you paying this person a salary when you think you can do it on your own? What a bunch of clowns.
Stan Bond
12:06 pm on Thursday, September 1, 2011
So, who is Dock Ellis really? I use my real name when I address the citizens of Montgomery, how about you do the same? We are not "these people" and we are not "a bunch of clowns." Stop the name calling please. If you have a specific point to make about the actual ordinance, make it.
KEVIN BROWN
11:07 am on Wednesday, August 31, 2011
The trustees that were elected by the people spoke for the people this previous election they decided they wanted change in that possition and last night the trustees answered that by eliminating here powers. the village manager and her department of assitance are costing the Village over $435,000 a year and the village manager spot cost taxpayers over $200,000 a year with perks. that is way to much fer this village and this economy.
Jake
11:28 am on Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Sad day for the Village of Montgomery. This new regime is off to a GREAT start. Taking powers away from the Village Manager? What's next??? Driving business/future businesses away from Montgomery? Trustees already complain that meetings are too long now because of slashing other meetings. I can only image how these meetings are going to go now. I can honestly say, I really don't want to hear a single complaint from any of them about how long the meetings are now. Guess these trustees that voted yes can't handle "delegating" authority to others. Lee said it best "micromanaging." For the two trustees that voted "No", I applaud you! Wish there were more trustees like you. The Village government is exactly that, government. The Village of Montgomery has now grown large enough that it needs to get out of the "Good ole Boy Club." As it stands now, let me pose this question.....an emergency has happened in the Village and a contractor needs to be brought in. Instead of taking care of the problem, like the Village Manager would have because she HAD the powers to do this up to a certain amount. Now we have to wait for a "Special Session" so that it can be approved. Nothing like delaying a disaster or ermgency just so some "new/newer" trustee(s) can have their name behind something. Selfish in my opinion, but that's just me. As a lifelong resident of Montgomery, the ole saying goes true.....One step forward, two steps back. Thanks "yes voting" trustees! I've lost all confidence in you!
Jeanne
12:00 pm on Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Kevin, correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't live in Montgomery do you? I just hope that these trustees remember when they have to fill this position in the future, you get what you pay for!!
KEVIN BROWN
12:39 pm on Wednesday, August 31, 2011
If the current Contract Employee/ Village manager is unhappy with her new employee role decided by the elected officals elected by the people than she has the right to resign and go else where if it makes her happy her contract runs till 2013 and as a contract employee her job has changed. If the voters are un happy with the boards decission in this tough economic time this village is in than in 2013 there will be another election and the residence will speak again.
Greg Nelson
1:02 pm on Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Jeanne, either does half of our staff - including the ADMIN/Mgr.
KEVIN BROWN
1:10 pm on Wednesday, August 31, 2011
jeanne If the village had a residental requirement than the public works director would not be employed due to he lives in Ottawa and the current village addminastor/ mgr resides in North Aurora.
Jeanne
7:08 pm on Wednesday, August 31, 2011
I have worked in the business world for over 40 years and NEVER have I worked for a company where the board got involved in staff level hiring or emplyee reviews. Talk about micro managing! It's obvious that some of the trustees have never worked in a business setting either or they would understand the role of the trustees. It is not micro managing the day to day operations, especially when they have no experience in municipal government or labor relations. I find it interesting that Kevin is so interested in the politics of Montgomery when he doesn't even live in Montgomery.
KEVIN BROWN
8:40 pm on Wednesday, August 31, 2011
The last time I checked my zipcode is 60538 Montgomerys zip code is 60538 is it not.
Theresa Sperling
9:40 pm on Wednesday, August 31, 2011
What an unfortunate outcome! I’m so disappointed that this ordinance will be changed. We’ve just tied the hands of the village manager in doing the job . Why would anyone who is qualified want to deal with this mess? I hope all the trustees will be prepared to meet and make decisions quickly. Waiting for scheduled meetings to take care of pressing issues will not be tolerated. If we have a decrease in services, you will hear about that too. I know I sure didn’t vote for the trustees to be so involved in daily operations. That’s why we have a professional in place. I just can’t understand the thinking behind this. We ELECTED all of you to do what’s best for this village. Seems like personal agendas are taking over. I don’t think those who voted yes realize what they have taken on. Those who opposed it (Brolley and Lee), THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THE VILLAGE FIRST when you cast your vote. It would be nice if ALL the ELECTED board members put the village first.
Paul Zink
1:14 pm on Thursday, September 1, 2011
It seems to me that the board took an action that actually helps to ELIMINATE personal agendas from taking over. I commend the board for putting the Village first.
Greg Nelson
11:15 pm on Wednesday, August 31, 2011
One other note: 90% of 60538 locations pay for water which last time I looking comes from the Village. So maybe not in the city limits any person paying for services coming from the Village show have the rights to speak. One other note is thank GOD Kevin was around to aid in the use of the life saving heart defibrillator at the hall during the almost death of a resident, hats off to Kevin and all that helped!
I would like to say that many that have typed here were not at the Village meeting and may not have all the facts disclosed during the meeting.
Jason Bragg
3:22 am on Thursday, September 1, 2011
Not only has Stand Bond, Andy Kaczmarek, Pete Heinz, and surprisingly Bill Keck set this village back 10+ years of progress, they’ve now potentially opened “We, the Taxpayers” up to more serious liability and lawsuits.
Why would a board be so hell bent on taking away the day-to-day duties and responsibilities of the village manager and absorb them as part-time village trustees? Residents paid $4,000 for all six trustees to attend governance training back in June where they were informed by local leading experts in the field of public administration that limiting the power of the village manager was not the way to run a village in this day and age.
Due to four trustees’ silence and refusal to debate the issue at this week’s meeting, taxpayers are left to wonder what the true reasoning was behind their decision. Clearly, the actions of these trustees are not good business practice decisions for residents of Montgomery and their community business partners.
How due the trustees plan on staying current on public labor trends and practices, state and federal legislation, collective bargaining, union grievances, and day-to-day personnel issues? The village attorney is going to need more assistants on staff in order to keep the trustees informed, and that means more money out of our pockets.
Sadly, when these four trustees are long gone, the residents of Montgomery will be left picking up the pieces of the destruction they’ve caused and the tab they ran up.
barb lucas
4:37 am on Thursday, September 1, 2011
I wasn't at the meeting but can see how it looks to anyone paying any attention whether they live in Montgomery or not! Awful! You weren't voted in to do the manager's job, you are a trustees. If you felt the manager wasn't doing the job you need to address that issue. If you truly felt "it isn't about her" then what is it about? More power and micro-managing for you? Matt & Denny are right and I hope you pay more attention to their views in the future.
Greg Nelson
8:35 am on Thursday, September 1, 2011
I think time will tell on the manager/administrator position. I can say this having lived here for 20 years and in this area 50+ the Village is what it is because people in the past spent wisely. Over the past 10+ years since the current Village ADM/MGR has arrived we have over spent and are currently in the worst financial shape in our recent history. We have a BOND for a building that is too large and over budget. Ever dollar collected for fees goes to pay that BOND. If maybe a few of you chiming in would look at the P&L and Budget you could see this. So yes we need change and it is happening because people, we need strong people to drive us during these tuff times and make hard cuts and slim us down. One point if you haven’t been following, currently we are underfunded on road repairs. We are paying more on the top of the salary scale for chiefs when Indians are what we need. We have let the past board sell us into a tight position of finance and now we MUST correct it. Come and listen to a meeting, get a copy of our budget and monthly reports and see for yourself until then all I hear is…noise!
Andre Salles
8:38 am on Thursday, September 1, 2011
Everyone has a right to comment on any issue on here, provided they stick to the terms of use. Please keep this on topic, and don't devolve into posting about other commenters. Thank you.
Stan Bond
11:57 am on Thursday, September 1, 2011
Andre, what appears to be happening as I see it, is some person makes wild accusations about what is or is not the impact of the ordinance and then another bases their comments on the same or similar misconceptions. Could you arrange to post the actual ordinance online so people can see that it still very much relies on a Village Administrator to perform daily oversight of the Village's operation? I think reasoned discussion on this issue is fine, even if it occurs after and not before the vote. But, snarkiness based on mis-information is not helpful. If you can post the actual Ordinance then maybe the comments will become more specific and helpful.
Andre Salles
12:12 pm on Thursday, September 1, 2011
Let me see if I can do that.
R Olson
9:28 am on Thursday, September 1, 2011
At one time or another I have voted for every one of our current trustees. And have agreed, and disagreed with them on differant topics. I think the latest issue is important, and needs the sunshine of public discourse.
Jeanne
11:19 am on Thursday, September 1, 2011
If this new ordinace was truly drafted by Bond and Kaczmarek the fact that there was no discussion at the meeting tells me that Heinz and Keck were also involved in the discussions and knew ahead of time what the ordiance would be. If that is the case then there is a very real possibility that there may have been a violation of the Open Meetings Act. I would hope someone might be looking into that. This is not how business has been done in the past!!
Stan Bond
11:47 am on Thursday, September 1, 2011
Jeanne, as a former Trustee, you know full well that meeting documents are distributed to the Trustees in advance of meetings for the apparent few who actually took the time to read those materials and, in this case, the substantial supportive documentation. The Trustees can discuss an issue as much or as little as they deem necessary having reviewed the documents and the actual ordinance in the week prior to the meeting. Also, a grand total of about 8 words were changed from the previous Ordinance Draft that had been presented to and discussed by the Board at the previous meeting. I expect more from you as one experienced with the Trustee process than to publicly insinuate violation of the law by elected officials because you did not agree with their discussion. If you have evidence of misconduct, make your case. But don't hide behind "I would hope someone might be looking into that." You look into it if you think the idea is worth expressing publicly to the detriment of our community.
Paul Zink
1:06 pm on Thursday, September 1, 2011
Jeanne I say thank goodness and thank the current board that "business" in the village will no longer be done as it was in the past.
Greg Nelson
11:33 am on Thursday, September 1, 2011
Jeanne - Steve Anderson if you have been following reviewed the docs and this has been on the table for well months. (Read the second paragraph) "After months of talking about it, the Village Board voted to reduce the authority of the village manager, approving an ordinance that eliminates the manager’s ability to hire and fire employees, give raises or cut pay, and add or remove department heads without board approval." Like I have said come to the meetings everyone and listen to what is spoken it will clear up much!
Jeanne
11:57 am on Thursday, September 1, 2011
There were items included in this ordinance that were NEVER discussed at a prior meeting as evidenced by comments made by other board members. So, Greg, while it has been talked about for months there were things slipped in that were not included in those discussions. Also, in the entire time I served on the board I do not remember seeing you at more than 1 or 2 meetings.
Stan Bond
12:01 pm on Thursday, September 1, 2011
Jeanne, how about you identify some of those "items" that were slipped in there and never discussed? You have read the ordinance haven't you? Get specific please. Let's see what you've got. Back up your assertion or apologize to your community.
Jake
11:18 pm on Thursday, September 1, 2011
Stan - If you're so strong on your statements, which you appeard to be, then please kindly answer this one question. What is the justification as to the vote of eliminating powers from the Village Manager. Is it financial? Is it the person? What is it? If you can answer that with a straight answer and some round about avoiding the question answer, I will have more respect for you.
Stan Bond
8:39 am on Friday, September 2, 2011
Jake, when you use your real and full name on Patch, I'll be happy to dialogue with you on this discussion board. I would also be more than happy to arrange a meeting with you at Village Hall to discuss your concerns personally. My phone number is 630 440-1007. What is yours?
Jake
8:52 am on Friday, September 2, 2011
Stan, Pretty sure my real name is Jake. Correction Jacob, my bad, and I would be more than willing to provide a birth certificate to prove that. Just for your satisfaction. But, since again, you've escaped/avoided the question(s), I don't see how meeting in person is going to change anything. I would be more than willing to do that however I'm pretty sure it wouldn't answer anything and would be a big waste of my time. Typipcal "Yes Voting" politician to avoid questions. I'm not going to give my phone number out to just anyone. You coming to my doorstep was already one too many times to deal with you. In today's times, I really don't feel comfortable giving out personal information. If someone wants to get ahold of me, they'll figure it out and they'll do it.
Steve Jungermann
8:57 am on Friday, September 2, 2011
Stan, I attended the meeting this past Tuesday and it seemed like most of the trustees who voted "yes" were more interested in trying to push through a vote than to have an "open dialogue" concerning the ordinances that were on the agenda. It seems to me that even though a trustee may not be REQUIRED by law to give a reason for their decision that a trustee has some sort of ethical obligation to give a reason for their decision. This is called open and honest dialogue. The time for open and honest dialogue has passed. Now the village must move on and try to heal from the damage caused by Tuesday nights vote.
Andre Salles
12:17 pm on Thursday, September 1, 2011
All right. I need everyone - EVERYONE - to step back, take a breath, and stop going after each other. Keep this discussion on topic, or your comment will be deleted.
Andre Salles
12:31 pm on Thursday, September 1, 2011
At Trustee Bond's request, I have uploaded a red-line version of the ordinance that was passed on Tuesday. This document shows the changes (in red) that occurred between meetings. You can find it above, right under the photo.
KEVIN BROWN
2:40 pm on Thursday, September 1, 2011
Thank you Andre for puting the document on the patch so everyone can see it.
Josh Salisbury
5:43 pm on Thursday, September 1, 2011
I don't know why we are all arguing this issue was voted on it passed 4-2 and remember this is about the position no the person in the position
Jake
10:03 pm on Thursday, September 1, 2011
Ok...if it is about the position, tell me who is going to do negotiations? Who is going to run the day to day operations? Who's going to take care of and handle grievences? Who will make emergency purchases? Again, in my previous post, it's going to have to contracted out. Looking at Jason Bragg's post, he hit the nail on the head. Instead of having a one stop shop with a "Village Manager", now we are going to pay many more people to do the job that she has already been doing for years. Not to mention the fact, like I stated, she's under contract. As a village, we are paying her the EXACT same pay today, post "de-powering". So what "cost savings" has this made? To my on the surface knowledge, NONE!
Jake
9:53 pm on Thursday, September 1, 2011
You know, reading everyone's post it makes me chuckle. I have to say, did any of the trustees that voted yes ever think that it is going to COST money to have the trustees runnin the show now? What trustees are going to know, understand and be able to conduct negotiations. Sounds like that's going to have to be contracted out now. Again, HOLY MICROMANAGING. If I was a trustee, I'd be ashamed of my actions. Absolutely ashamed. Make strides for the better through the years and now we are making strong SPRINT for the worse. I also laugh, you all voted to take powers away, now you are PAYING HER THE SAME PAY to have no say in anything! She has THE GREATEST gig now because she's UNDER CONTRACT! I guess knowing how contracts work seems to be too obvious. Call me crazy, pretty sure your homework wasn't done on this one and it's a knee jerk reaction on the part of the "Yes voting" trustees. As the VILLAGE MANAGER, nothin like having free money given to you to not do anything. Way to think this one out trustees! I can honestly say for the first time in my life, I'm embarrassed to be a citizen of Montgomery. If times were better, it'd be a lot easier to move. Guess doing things for the good of the community and the good of the people was thrown out the door with this new group. Keep stickin with the water bill issues. That seems to be their major problem/concern in the Village right now. Nevermind the fact that a bunch of clowns, "Yes Voting" trustees are now running the show.
Melissa
8:31 am on Friday, September 2, 2011
What a shock. Why didn't they just vote to terminate the current Manager? Get someone that they get along with and can communicate better. From reading previous articles it seems to be the person not the system. The system has been in existence and worked for years all over the country. I really agree with most
Montgomery's reputation which was already not the best will be affected.
Stan Bond
9:01 am on Friday, September 2, 2011
Hi Melissa. We did not change the system or abandon the position of village administrator. In reality we increased their responsibilities to build customer responsiveness and customer satisfaction measurement into our daily operations. We also increased the level of dialogue required to make key financial decisions. Please read the actual ordinance as Andre has posted it here. You can even compare it with the previous one which is also posted here. I think you will see that the hysteria is unwarranted. I think you will also appreciate that it is written in plain english and not legaleze.
Jake
1:04 pm on Friday, September 2, 2011
You sure did increase the level of dialogue. Now it has to be an agenda item, so now there is a month added to the process. At that meeting, you'll have to talk about it, which if it gets through on the first attempt, that's a miracle. So now we are into the second month. So basically we've delayed the process of hiring, firing, negotiating, etc.. What once the Village Manager could do before, now will probably take a minimum of two months to get through all because you guys HAVE to be involved in every hiring, firing, review etc.. Great system voted upon on Tuesday. I would also like an ellaborate answer as to how "the responsibilities" have been increased. Knowing enough about city/village jobs, union contracts, etc, that would be a change in job description which in turn must be voted upon as a whole for the rewritten job description. Last time I looked, that wasn't presented. Therefore it could open oneself (The Village) up to an ULP (Unfair Labor Practice). I don't think that for the good of the Village and the Village Government that incurring excessive attourney fees would be wise in the economic downturn of today.
Charlene Coulombe
8:55 am on Friday, September 2, 2011
It is extremely important to focus on the positive in our community. What we have, what we have done right.... the good that has come over the last decade.
Please can we stop this negative talk.
Greg Nelson
9:25 am on Friday, September 2, 2011
Why is it that people can't read and take others speak as gospel? I also can't understand why people mask their real names, are they so hidden away that speaking directly is a fear? People all the trustees can be contacted if you don't understand things. Come to a meeting, listen, learn, and shake a few hands (THEY DON'T BITE)!
Terry Bermes
2:06 pm on Friday, September 2, 2011
I agree with Greg on posters who hide behind anonymity in their posts. Posters are likely to be much more civil and far less insulting if their true identities are attached to their posts. If you are going to post, have the courage of your convictions.
Andre Salles
3:09 pm on Friday, September 2, 2011
For the record, Terry, I agree with you and Greg as well. Our terms of use prohibit using aliases or other means of masking your identity, and I crack down on that to the extent that I am able. I always appreciate it when people stand behind their comments with their real, full names.
Matt Walker
4:33 pm on Friday, September 2, 2011
It looks to me as though the Village of Montgomery prefers to run things Chicago style. Now hiring, firing, and raises will be based not soley on performance but on political clout. We're really going to take that power away from a trained professional and leave it in the hands of part time Trustees? This is ridiculous. Which trustees are up for reelection in the next round?
William Gutierrez
4:38 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012
I just have a few questions for you guys. Who signed off on the Village Manager's pay? Who signed off on the yearly budgets including capital expenditures?
Stan Bond
6:26 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Well, it's been about a year now. How about it everyone. Is Montgomery falling apart or do things seem to you to be about the same? Is our "ship sinking?" Was all the hysteria and hand wringing warranted or over the top?
Greg Nelson
8:15 am on Monday, January 21, 2013
Time can change many things and time is fixing some of the issues that is clear. The board is more clear now but we still allow contract purchases without Village board approval, we still allow purchase over limit on our Village Credit Cards, we still have not had an audit by a newer auditor (different) in 8+ years. The list is shorter to repair the wrongs of the past, finally! The voting will change the future even more and for the better. We still have a few months before that so I say to you STAN, ANDY, PETE and BILL keep up that fight to save us money, keep up the battle because the WAR isn't finished just yet! Many Thanks to the four that see the future!