Don't Feed the Geese

The Canadian Goose is a beautiful bird. Because they were once endangered, they were placed under the protection of the U.S. Endangered Species Act. In 2001 they were delisted due to recovery. More information about the Canadian Goose can be found at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

In Minerva Park, our lakes serve as home to many Canadian Geese. If you have been to the lakes recently you likely noticed the inundation of geese coming to find a morsel or two from any passerby.
The geese have grown comfortable with humans, and often can be intimidating and aggressive.

Feeding the ducks is a wonderful experience for children and adults alike, but with a population of geese such as the one in Minerva Park, it becomes a challenge. The geese are not only aggressive in search for food, they are destructive to the land surrounding the lakes. Their "tracks" are messy and unhealthy and a nuisance to be cleaned up.

Concern has been expressed by residents in the park over the population of geese we foster. Those who live near the lake have to contend with erosion of their yards, goose waste, and noise created by the geese.

While harassing the geese is not recommended, abstaining from feeding them is. They come back to our village to nest and find food and have been able to successfully do so. Each year more baby geese are born here and they return in following years to breed themselves.

Dogs provide a good goose deterrent, just by walking them along the lake, residents can help the geese decide to find another place to nest.

The number of ducks in our lakes have been reduced  in recent years, presumably due to competition from the geese. Perhaps as we make attempts to reduce the goose population we can bring back some of the less destructive species like the Mallards, Pekins, and American Black Ducks.

Bias in Council?

This past month an ordinance was proposed to increase (future) council members' pay. The topic of this post is more heavily focused on the way that this piece of legislation was presented rather than the legislation itself, however there were some curious issues about the discussion of the legislation among council.

The first presentation of this ordinance (3-2011) was during the March Council Meeting, March 14, 2011.
During this meeting, the chair of the legislation committee, Sharon Bierman, presented the ordinance with a reading, as any other ordinance is presented, but finished the reading with a comment "I would like to add that this is sponsored by council member Segovia."

When asked why she mentioned that, she said that it was to make it clear it did not originate with the Mayor, Clerk-Treasurer, or herself. She then asked for an opinion from the Clerk-Treasurer on the financial situation for the coming year (2012).

Suzanne Coulter, Clerk-Treasurer, reported that: "very preliminary numbers show that by the end of 2012 the village will be in the red by current spending. Mainly because of two revenue streams losses." (The local government fund and estate taxes). 

The issue of funding and the contents of the ordinance will be discussed later, for now, let's look at the attention that council drew to this particular ordinance that is not given to any other ordinance I have seen in the last 4 years of legislation as posted on the website.

The website itself lists the legislation as follows:

No other ordinance (or resolution) has a sponsor listed with it.

This image was taken before the legislation was presented to council. 

I personally have also noticed that there isn't much of any failed legislation. Either it doesn't fail, or it's removed from the website, I'm not sure. 

There seems to be a pattern where council does what it wants. What a select few want is what goes. 

This image was taken after the legislation was voted down in the March council meeting.

I also find it ironic that a council member (Pam Park-Curry) mentioned that it was just the first reading of the ordinance and questions could be discussed in the upcoming work session. Then, she proceeded to vote down the ordinance, as did everyone excepting Mr. Segovia, said sponsor. Therefore, questions couldn't be discussed in work session.

After the vote, Sharon Bierman requested a poll of the vote, by way of a show of hands.

The Villager issue for April 2011 included this legislation in the Mayor's Report, listed under the Legislative committee. It reads as follows:

Ordinance 3-2011- Increasing council members' pay from $600/year to $1,800/year (ayes were Segovia; nays were Bierman, Danzuso, Park-Curry, Stanley, Walter). First reading and thus the ordinance itself, failed.

This is the only ordinance I have ever seen presented in the villager with individual names attached to votes. It is a rarity to see any ordinance listed with the number of votes attached. However, most of the legislation proposed by council passes. There seems to be a bit of peer pressure in the room while voting happens. What a select few say goes with everyone else. 

Perhaps this is because if one doesn't always comply with the desires of this select few, they will be ostracized as Mr. Segovia has been. Their name will appear on legislation they propose, they will be made to look as if they are uncooperative with the rest of council. Technically, that may be true, but making a voting choice to cooperate is not what voting should be about.

Because Mr. Segovia doesn't always cooperate with the peer pressure council exudes, he has been labeled as one of "them" rather than one of "us" by council. Well, that's my opinion on it at least. Sit in on a meeting, look critically at the Villagers, and you'll likely agree. The same goes for particular citizens that don't meet the standards or interests of council. But that's another topic.

To the issue of the ordinance itself, Sharon seemed interested in the increased cost in increasing pay of newly elected members. The Park does face issues with funding, though there is an interesting pattern in what is viewed as "do able" with funding and what is not.

One particular example was brought up in the Council Meeting was the spending on Panera Bread catering for the Christmas Carriage rides in 2010. The Village spent $2,303.03 from the Village fund, not the MPCA on Panera's catering. The estimate for attendance was about 325. That comes out to about $7.09 per person for food alone. 

When asked about this expense relative to that of increasing compensation for council members, Suzanne Coulter responded that she didn't have a comment for that, and that the budget was sent out.

The intent of this compensation increase was to encourage residents to run for council, as there are several positions coming up for election this fall.

I personally noticed that during the March Council Work Session, the topic of documents being shared via e-mail was brought up. There seems to have been a switch from paper documentation to largely virtual documents. When council member Segovia asked that documents formatted for legal paper be printed as they always had been, Sharon interjected that was part of personal printing costs, to come out of the $600/year. Suzanne added that it must be the same for everyone, as in they can't print things for one person and not another. Theoretically though, they could offer to print for everyone and anyone could turn down having copies prepared for them if they choose to use e-mail. Though during this work session, Mr. Segovia brought up that even through e-mail documents aren't always dispensed in a timely fashion. I digress...

So, apparently not only is "council" not interested in increasing compensation for newly elected members, they are, perhaps inadvertently, increasing costs for current council members.

Apparently buying Panera catering for an event that would likely suffice with volunteer baked goods and hot chocolate is "do-able" with Village funds. Another expense that wasn't a necessity: TrueGreen Chemlawn: $1623.52 in 2010.
The amount of increase for the two positions coming up combined equals $2,400.00 a year. Compare this to the above "expenses" that were considered good enough to merit Village money.

The overall intent of this post is to address the special treatment Mr. Segovia received from council. No other piece of legislation has been treated as his was. There is a lot of room for respect to grow in our council, but as long as these practices continue there will continue to be a "them" and an "us" feeling in our community building.