FAQ: A Reply to Questions Raised about our Airport Politics

[Jack Gallagher]

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ's)
A More Extended Reply to Questions Often Raised about our Airport Politics
--For Those Who Like More Rather Than Less Information--

Introduction:

As many of you know, we've had controversy around my questions about our Public Airport and its operations. Some claim I am "out to get them" or "trying to stop airport development". Such is not the case. To be sure, I've been frustrated in efforts to get information regarding the airport, but with some determination I've become better informed. I now understand more about the source of our controversies, and it is not personal. It is tied to long-standing Township differences.

Question #1: What's wrong with the Public Airport's governing documents? They fail to conform to Michigan law. To legally operate a jointly owned airport, Michigan statutes require townships to forge and reach written agreement on certain key issues. No such agreements exist here-and the absence of an agreement leaves ambiguity about what and how things should be done. It forces people to argue over airport decisions and control. The no-agreement problem has gone on for decades-with the townships' lawyer drafting several documents in the 1990s, only to have them rejected by one township or the other. Years after agreement couldn't be reached they simply gave up-leaving the matter unresolved and ignoring the Michigan statutes.

The absence of official legal documents to guide decision-making meant that business had to be conducted "unofficially"-and it was. For many years the chairmen of each joint township operation was generally selected from the township in which the public service was located. But this apparently changed over the past decade when the leadership of the two townships became intertwined with family connections.

The Peaine Supervisor recommended that the St. James Supervisor (his father-in-law) chair the airport committee. The appointment went through and the peaceful family leadership combined with the long-standing precedent for St. James to make decisions first by holding their Board meetings a week before Peaine Board meetings. The result was the tendency for the Peaine Township Board to just go along-basically "rubber-stamping" the St. James decisions. The past decade saw little conflict. Things were kept under wraps and under control.

But now things are out in the open and it is time to consider the facts:

1. A Beaver Island Airport Resolution on governing the Airport was passed and signed in 1983 by both townships-but it failed to address areas of state-required agreement;
2. A Beaver Island Airport Ordinance was adopted in 1993. Peaine Township approved and signed it, but St. James Township did not. It also neglected essential agreements.
3. A Beaver Island Airport Authority was drafted in 1996-which would have transferred the airport land, facilities, operations, and taxing rights to yet another body (an Airport Authority), but Peaine Township did not agree.
4. In 2002, Peaine Township approved the St. James Supervisor to become chair of the Airport Committee-all went calm on the Airport front.
5. In late 2008, I was elected Peaine Supervisor, but found no documents on airport governance or operations.
6. In June of 2009, Jim Wojan, a member of the St. James board and airport committee, gave me a page from the 1983 Beaver Island Airport Resolution.
7. Turning to our lawyer (then serving both townships) I asked for the complete governing document-and to my surprise, he sent me a 1992 Ordinance given to him by Don Vyse in 2006. On it, Don had written: "This copy of the Ordinance isn't signed, but it is the one in effect with no changes".
8. I was confused-and turned again to our lawyer to find out which of the two documents controlled-for this is no minor issue. The two documents call for totally different decision-making processes.
9. The lawyer responded: I have reviewed my files concerning the airport organization, and have included letters concerning the proposed airport authority. Although the airport authority was proposed, I do not believe it was actually created. I have attached a 1992 airport ordinance. Please note the 2006 coversheet from Don Vyse, which indicates that while the ordinance was unsigned it was the ordinance in effect. Because of this 2006 notation (which was well after the airport authority was proposed) I believe this ordinance is the document governing the airport committee.
10. I accepted his opinion, but others didn't. After a couple of contentious meetings, both Townships agreed to further legal counsel. The lawyer advised�the situation should not remain as it is, given the inconsistency of the documents and the lack of a cohesive organization that operates under the statutes of Michigan law.

Question #2: What kinds of new governing documents are now being developed--and how do we handle things until they are finished and agreement is reached? New governing documents for the airport must be comprehensive as well as legal, with policies that position our Townships for a more complex and demanding future. Some controversy will likely continue around the emerging and old governing documents until new policy guidelines are in place-but the transition is manageable-and peace will come when an accord is reached. The facts:

1. Having never officially approved the 1992 Ordinance, St. James now operates under the 1983 agreement-although St. James does not conform to its own resolution requiring that a pilot be one of their three appointed members.
2. Having approved the 1992 Ordinance, Peaine now operates under that agreement. Thus the legally constituted airport committee now consists of the entire Peaine Township Board-though we have agreed to a subcommittee consisting of 3 appointees to match the 3 St. James appointees. During this interim period, the Peaine Board recognizes the Airport Committee as a subcommittee with a continuing role in airport planning.
3. Peaine Township retained a new attorney and he began by advising on the pros and cons of three types of legal agreements. Last week the Peaine Board selected an "intergovernmental agreement" option and asked their lawyer to begin drafting such an agreement for their review. This option will not create another taxing body or incur the costs of a separate legal entity-as would happen with an airport authority. Our Peaine lawyer will later work with St. James' lawyer to resolve any points of disagreement.
4. The new agreement will delineate the committee's authority, responsibility, rules of operation, matters that require Township Board approval, financial agreements between the townships, the method of resolving disagreements, and so on.

Question #3: Why did the Peaine Township Board unanimously agree to hire a new attorney-and won't it cost more money? It is highly unusual for the same attorneys to represent two collaborating townships since the attorney can't fairly or ethically represent both when disagreements arise. Michigan has many joint agreements among various government entities, but only a few share the same lawyer. Again, the facts speak for themselves.

1. At a joint November 2009 meeting, the prior attorney (then still representing both townships) recommended the townships try again to forge a new agreement. Peaine approved a motion to have him prepare a document on the pros and cons of Michigan's three legal possibilities for joint airport governance.
2. At the same meeting, St. James expressed their preference for an Airport Authority, and directed the attorney to go ahead and draft such a document.
3. A working sub-committee with representatives from each township was appointed to work with the lawyer on a draft agreement (Speck, Gallagher, Welke, and Cole).
4. Shortly thereafter, the lawyer sent an "airport authority" agreement for their review.
5. Peaine again requested a list of the advantages and disadvantages of the three different options (the pros and cons) but the lawyer continued to ignore their request.
6. Peaine representatives reviewed the "Airport Authority" draft, and found many flaws.
   • They agreed that they didn't want the committee to have taxation powers (as an Airport Authority does). But the drafted agreement provided that the township boards shall approve the budget developed by the airport committee and that the township board shall then be required to levy the taxes needed to fund the budget. It gave taxing powers to non-elected officials without a public hearing.
   • The dispute resolution in the draft was for one township to withdraw, divide the airport assets evenly and sell the airport land to Peaine Township for a dollar. This may or may not have been a good deal for Peaine, given the added burden of liability and tax issues-but it wasn't a workable agreement for the Island.
   • In light of these and other questions about the proposed Authority, Peaine again asked for advice on other options. They were ignored, and Peaine moved on.
   • Peaine joined St. James Township in paying the attorney $5,000 for his work, although the lawyer devoted most of his time responding to St. James' direction. That was a waste of money since we had nothing to show for it.
7. Peaine decidedto get new counsel and began a thoughtful process of finding an attorney-an RFP was sent to 14 firms, eight responded, four were interviewed and a firm was retained-all in the space of six weeks.)
8. Peaine's new lawyer wrote an opinion on the pros and cons of alternative ways of governing the airport and is now preparing a first draft of their selected agreement. He will work with St. James attorney to help us approve mutually-acceptable governance.
9. We should have a draft plan in early October and a fully negotiated and approved document later in the same month.

Question #4: What kinds of changes are called for in Airport Committee policies and practices? It is important that Beaver Island be known for respecting the law and its citizens' rights. The Island is unique and independent in many ways-but "getting around the law" should not be a source of pride. A look at airport committee norms and actions suggests why efforts to improve its policies and practices are long-overdue. Consider these facts:

1. The Airport Committee is operating a business on behalf of the public--but does not develop or share much financial or operating information. For example:
   *When airport traffic data was requested, the response was "we are not required to maintain a count"-while their traffic estimates vary widely from those of the state.
   *Their reported forecasts of anticipated gasoline sales and purchases have remained identical in recent years in spite of wide price fluctuations.
   *Requests for operating cost estimates for the airport expansion have been ignored.
   *In the summer of 2009, Peaine Township moved into a new budgeting process to make millage decisions that could hold down otherwise inevitable tax increases. In spite of many requests, the Airport Committee provided little useful information.
2. The Airport Committee records show it meets only 4 times a year for a total of 4 to 8 hours annually. Yes, in eight hours a year they are able to reach agreement on everything-their operating and developmental goals, plans, grants, budgets, actions, and so on. In about as much time as it takes to make one or two round trips on the ferry the committee gives their attention and expertise to developing the Island's long-range plans and overseeing airport operations and activities.
3. The Airport Committee refused to share its minutes until freedom-of-information requests were filed. The first request went to the Airport Committee Chair who provided only some of the minutes instead of all that were requested. A follow-up request was filed with the Peaine Township Clerk who provided some added minutes.
4. The Airport Committee recommended signing a renewal lease without reviewing it-and falsely attested to its review. In August, 2009 the Committee asked the Peaine Board to approve a renewal of Fresh Air's lease (the airline operating out of the public airport). The Peaine Township Clerk serving on the airport committee reported she had read every word of it and the only difference was the date and name of the supervisor who was to sign it. A majority of the Board accepted her statements and approved it even though questions were raised. Subsequent examination showed the lawyer had sent the wrong lease. The original document approved by the Peaine Board was not a renewal lease as claimed by the Committee and Township Clerk.
5. The Airport Committee does not bid for services or supplies. The airport manager was hired without advertising. The Airport Committee hires one of its members to perform maintenance duties without advertising the position. The Airport transports its fuel with a committee member's company without bidding. The minutes show no comparison shopping or bidding.
6. The Airport Committee prefers to keep its work out of the public eye. Their actions make a mockery of Michigan's Open Public Meeting act-which was designed to lift the shroud of secrecy often associated with political decision-making. The Michigan Legislative manual states: The ideal of a democratic government is too often thwarted by bureaucratic secrecy and unresponsive officials-citizens frequently find it difficult to discover which decisions are being made and what facts lie behind those decisions. The Open Meetings Act defines public meetings and establishes requirements for public meeting notices, locations and records.
   
   • Notices: Here the Committee often ignores the spirit if not the letter of the law. For example, an important special Airport Committee meeting was recently posted only in obscure places-inside the Government building and underneath other notices at the Post Office. Its purpose was posted as "a work session". The committee also held recent meetings that were not posted at all-with MDOT officials at the Beaver Island Public Airport in July and in Bellaire earlier this month. The Committee discouraged bringing their Airport Consultants to the Island and instead organized and went off-Island to meet them out of public view-and without notice. Since a majority of the Committee attended these meetings, they were in violation of the Open Meeting Act.
   • Locations: The committee selects locations that clearly limit and discourage public participation. The non-posted off-Island meeting is one example, but here on the Island-even after an official request by the Peaine Board to meet at the Township Hall-they choose to meet at the Airport or Government Building.
     
     The meeting room in the Government Building is 11'x14'. It seats 11 (7 metal folding chairs and 4 arm chairs). The Airport building seats 8 in a 14'x15' room (5 fixed and 3 movable chairs). The last Airport Committee meeting at the Government Building had over 23 people squeezed into the room and adjoining hallway. Many sat on the floor. Others left, as they couldn't breath or handle the hard, hot, windowless discomfort. Clearly, these locations cannot be described as "locations available to the public" as required by the Open Meetings Act.
   • Records: Minutes of the Airport Committee meetings are not made readily available and appear not to be taken seriously. Their meeting minutes disclose:
     • There are no minutes for meetings between Nov. 2000 and Nov. 2001.
     • There are no minutes for meetings between Sept. 2002 and Aug. 2003
     • With a normal meeting schedule of 4 times a year-we obtained only 11 sets of minutes for 24 scheduled meetings in the 2003 through 2008 years.
     • In 2009 the committee met three times for a total of about 4 hours, and with no mention about work done by subcommittees-we can only presume they handled everything in those 4 hours.
     • The minutes have no record of approving the 5 or 10-year plans, the taking of the Albin property, the Airport Layout Plan, or the meetings with Mead and Hunt (engineers of the 10 year plan).
     • A review of the entire set of records shows that for the most part the Airport Committee doesn't vote to approve plans. The members seem to reach unofficial agreement and seldom take or record official action.
     • The Committee and Mead and Hunt have ignored the Federal Aviation Administration's 20-page advisory on the manner in which the public should be involved in "Master Airport Planning"-early on in the process. Having been provided no legitimate opportunity for public input and dialog to date, we have only two months before us to correct the situation.

Practices such as these call out for course correction because the public deserves better. Those described above are not meant to disparage well-meaning individuals. They are intended to describe the basis of our differences, and the cause of much of our contention.

Question #5: Is it true that questions and work relative to the land acquisition and improved governance plans have delayed Airport improvements? No-there is no truth to this assertion. Those who claim we are trying to stop airport improvements through delay cannot support the claim with facts--but readers will have to judge for themselves. Judgments about the need for speedy action and the need for quality results play into this difference-in-view. Here are the facts as I see them regarding the Albin Property and Airport Improvement.

1. The Airport Committee began efforts to acquire the Albin property for airport improvement as long ago as 2001. These efforts were not successful.
2. In 2007 they hired Land Matters to help.
3. Prior to July 2009 the Committee still had not taken formal action to acquire the land.
4. In November 2009, two days before the Peaine Board meeting, the Airport Committee Chair brought in a proposed resolution for Peaine Board approval-it was to authorize eminent domain proceedings for the taking of private property. No information on necessity came with the proposed resolution. Most Board members knew little about the Airport plans and why condemning private property was necessary.
5. The request was put on the Peaine agenda, action was deferred, and arrangements were made for a joint Township meeting to discuss the "resolution of necessity". The matter of taking some of our residents' property was too serious a decision to undertake without back-up information and data.
6. A joint meeting with St. James Township was scheduled and took place later that same month. Both Townships tabled the decision until they had better information. It would have been inappropriate for the Boards to approve a taking of private property without understanding issues, the need for a taking, and the rights and responsibilities of the property owners. (Can you imagine a likely legal challenge-in light of a Committee that was not legally constituted and two local Township governments that didn't know what or why they were doing it?)
7. We prepared for informed decision-making-working with a downstate attorney handling the land acquisition. In February we revised our resolution so it met legal requirements and included the reasons and facts for a public taking.
8. In March the Townships held another joint meeting and unanimously approved the "taking". The decision-making process was done carefully so as to avoid the possibility of further litigation. Once the property was acquired, MDOT was able to authorize tree removal for improved visibility.

Was the 3-month work that took place across the winter holiday season a good investment of time and talent-or was it a delay tactic and waste of time and money? I believe the added time and work was worth it since we succeeded-the Albins chose not to challenge the well-documented necessity and accurate paperwork. The Township was granted the right to acquire the property, and we accomplished in 9 months what the committee hadn't been able to get closure on for years.

Taking Time to Develop a Good and Mutually Acceptable Governance Plan.

Today's governing agreements must not only be legal, they must help us govern for a more challenging future. They should position us to operate a significantly improved and expanded airport-one that serves residents and visitors well day and night, and helps us thrive environmentally and economically in today's competitive, complex world.

We need a different kind of governance for today's society. Even here on Beaver Island we need a committee that encourages tough questions, different perspectives and critical review of self-interest. We need a committee that brings a range of pertinent experiences and talents to bear on their work, and are willing to meet more than 4 to 8 hours a year. We need a committee with sound breadth and depth of business and operational knowledge about airports. We need a committee that welcomes public input so that both expertise and public viewpoints can be brought to bear on the development and operation of a first rate Beaver Island Airport.

Prepared by Jack Gallagher for citizen information--with no cost to Peaine taxpayers.
September 28, 2010

[esteger]

Thank you for your investigation of this subject, and your thougtful ananlysis. Hopefully we can move forward in an informed and objective manner.

[Michelle LaFreniere]

Very informative Jack. Thanks for taking the time to research this. Does anyone oppose what is said here?

[Gary Voogt]

I have read Jack Gallagher's manifesto about the Beaver Island Airport several times, and still can't come to grips of what he wants. It's like reading a reverse image of Robert Frost's "Happiness makes up in height what it lacks in length". In Jack's case, those eleven pages make up in length what they lack in depth.
His first concern is we have a public airport with a private air carrier. Hello? All public airports use private carriers - companies like Delta, United, Southwest, Fresh Air. It's an old concept called free enterprise.
Island Airways has chosen for now not to use the public airport. That's their right as a private company. And, they retain the right to change their mind in the future. But Jack wants to build a terminal now for two airlines - sort of a twisted Beaver Island Field of Dreams where if you build it, they will come? The proposed terminal can easily be expanded with federal assistance when and if the two airline use becomes a reality. The present runway and aprons are more than adequate to accommodate all island air service needs.
What right does a township supervisor have, and what was his motive, to publish private business information such as enplanements in a public forum? Both Keith and Paul deserve an apology. They can rest assured the rest of us know Jack's numbers are probably wrong.
Jack writes that a sliver of hope remains to wreck the 10 year plan. Why in the world would these islanders set aside the good solid long range work of their airport committee?
Jack, you were elected to be the Supervisor, not the Carpetbagger. Respect the history of this island and the intelligence of these wonderful people. They don't deserve your coaching on how to disrupt orderly governance. By the way, you best apologize sincerely for the low father in law remark. I know Don Vyse. Don Vyse is a friend of mine. Jack, you are no Don Vyse.

[Pat Simmons]

Thanks for the information about this issue, Mr. Gallagher, and please continue in your efforts to bring local governance in line with state law. Judging by the response directly above, you're heading in the right direction. Good luck.

[Jack Gallagher]

Gary Voigtâ??your comments on my recent Airport Report call for a response. Iâ??m going to overlook your name-calling and put-downs, and stick to the issues. You are the first to offer criticism and â??counterâ?￾ information regarding my concerns, and I want to respond seriously.

First, you say that after reading my report â??you couldnâ??t come to grips with what I wantâ?￾. As Supervisor, I want to know, and I want our tax-paying public to know, how our PUBLIC AIRPORT will serve the likely air travel needs of Beaver Island residents and visitors over the next 10 years. As Supervisor, I want the Airport Committee to provide information and seek input from our Township Board and our tax-paying public before any 10-year plan is finalized. I want our Township Board to be fully knowledgeable before approving any plan we send to the State. Is this straightforward enough for you?

And as a resident and tax-payer, I also believe Beaver Island should have a public airport terminal designed to accommodate two airline companies, not one. Our terminal should be designed so it can be â??readily developed to its full and appropriate levelâ?￾ should this isolated community need it. We should be prepared to handle all Island air travel from the public airport. The Michigan Airport System Plan cautions against reliance on private airports as a long-term transportation resourceâ??and I happen to agree with them. I suggested we plan and design for two nowâ??so a second airline can be accommodated readily when needed. If planned properly now, a second airline could be added without having to teardown a relatively new terminal or invest in a costly addition. In fact, it even appears possible with the current design, should one or two of the planned â??conference roomsâ?￾ be eliminated. But I am seeking good design now, Garyâ??not a â??twisted Beaver Island field of dreamsâ?￾ that youâ??ve accused me of.

You also make fun of my comments on private air carriers and public airports, saying â??Hello. All public airports use private carriersâ?￾. But while your â??humorâ?￾ distorts, it doesnâ??t mask the basic point. The major carriers you identify (Delta, United, Southwest) donâ??t operate out of private airportsâ??as Beaver Islandâ??s major air carrier does. You refer to the â??old concept called free enterpriseâ?￾ â??but fail to acknowledge that free enterprise assumes a level or comparable playing field. Our goal is to ensure that both competitors here can benefit from state, federal, and local investment. I also wonder, Gary, if you find it an unusual state of affairs to have 85% of our public relying on the availability of a private airportâ??a situation even the state says is risky.

You claim I want to â??to wreck the 10 year planâ?￾ and want to â??set aside the good long range work of the airport committeeâ?￾. Not true Gary. I just want them to be publicly accountable. No Board review or public discussion of the plan has gone on hereâ??and should there be any problems with the plan (such as the possibility I raise) the committee will not be liable. The Township Board will be, and so will the public that will have to pay for them. Why doesnâ??t the Airport Committee want the public and the Board to have a say about the plans? Are they trying to hide something? Are they infallible? What, in your view, justifies their â??behind closed doorsâ?￾ or â??off-Islandâ?￾ decision-makingâ?￾?

You say that questions about â??emplanementsâ?￾ are an invasion of privacy and call for an apology to the owners of our two air-service carriers. I cited â??air operationsâ?￾ and not emplanements, Garyâ??and what I shared was not â??myâ?￾ informationâ??it came from the State of Michigan 2008 Airport System Plan. That is not a private source. It addresses PUBLIC USE Airports and their PUBLIC USEâ??and the public deserves to know it.

We, the public, also need to know whether the claims you make are true. You say, â??The present runway and aprons are more than adequate to accommodate all Island air service needsâ?￾â??but that doesnâ??t seem to be the case. The 10-year plan includes a $240,000 expansion of the apron area in 2013. If you are correct that â??the present runway and aprons are adequateâ?￾ why does the current plan call for an expansion?

What could possibly be wrong with questions about whether or not the planned space is adequate for all Island air travel? Think about all the questions asked about our school when it was being plannedâ??the public was invited to meetings and encouraged to ask questions and make suggestions. The School Board and staff didnâ??t seem insulted by questions, nor did they put people down who shared their thoughts and ideas. What is all this sensitivity about? Questions about the airport plan are not indictments of those who prepared the initial plan. They are simply questions that come from the belief that elected officials and the public have the right and responsibility to be informed and vigilant about their local government.

But I agree with you on two points, Gary. You say we should â??respect the history of this Island and the intelligence of these wonderful peopleâ?￾. I couldnâ??t agree with you more, and I respect people hereâ??which is why I chose to live here and why I take time and money to encourage a sharing of facts and views with them. Respect is not a pat on the head or backâ??it is an honest human exchange that values peopleâ??s different knowledge and perspectives. I regret the secrecy, control-of-others and disrespect that sometimes happens here, and will speak out against it when it doesâ??for I believe that the Island public is intelligent, open-minded, and eager to participate in public affairs. They are not children to be taken care of by those who already have the answers for them. I am here and active in the community because I found Island residents to be people I genuinely like and respect.

The other point we surely agree on Mr. Voogt, is that Jack Gallagher is not Don Vyse. I appreciate your interest in our Public Airport.

Jack Gallagher

[Pat Simmons]

Well said, Mr.Gallagher.

[Gary Voogt]

Oh boy. Let's all lighten up. This is just politics, it's not personal.
Ken is right. Here is my full disclosure. I provided engineering consultation first to Joan Petrak, supervisor of Peaine, on the original paving of King's Highway, and over the years brought about $5,000,000 in federal and state grants to this island. My engineering company did work for many projects and we were paid for that work. I sold my interest and retired from that company 3 years ago. I have no financial or employment interest in Land Matters.
Today I am a cattle farmer. I am not working for either township or the airport. I don't have a financial interest in Island Airways, Fresh Air, or the Boat Company, but I have a great interest in the economic wellbeing of them all.
I fly exclusively on Island Airways. I appreciate leaders who don't come with only questions, but answers. I love this island and these people. I am sad that 2 airlines divide us into us and them. I am a Protestant catholic. I didn't vote for Obama, and I never belonged to a union.

[Jimmy McCafferty]

I am total agreement with Mr Voogt on his assement on the Township Airport project. I was totally baffelled by Mr Gallaghers assertion about back door meetings and off Island meetings. Perhaps the board members are better served by going to work by the CIA. Be real Mr Gallagher.

Put your ego and controlling personality on the back burner and let some honest and concerned citizens of the Island so some good. Knowing most of the board members most of my life I take it as a personal insult that you would attack their characters

And to you Mr. Taylor your comments about Mr. Voogt where totally out of line but I quess we should not expect much more from you.

We are all adults lets act like it.

[Angel Welke]

Paul and I would like to clarify / dispute an item in this posting entitled "The Beaver Island Airport Project: A Special Report." A comment is included in this document which states, "Welke Airport is private and can be sold or retired at will." CORRECTION: As a result of the hangar lot condominium development arrangement at Welke Airport, Welke Airport cannot be closed at will. If you have any questions or would like additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us at 231 448 2374 (home) or 231 448 2071 (Welke Airport terminal).

Paul and Angel Welke

[AEW]

I was wondering about that...