The city’s “back” is not “against the wall.”
There is no wall.
There is no budget crisis that requires a .691 mill tax increase for Clarkston taxpayers.
There isn’t even a budget crisis.
It’s all bullshit made up by city manager Jonathan Smith to get his way – again – to hire our current contract city clerk and to give giant compensation increases to the three other city hall employees, including a very big one (surprise!) for Jonathan Smith.
Smith is riding this gravy train as hard as possible. He currently makes $44,990 per year for a four-day, 32-hour week and enjoys 15 vacation days, 14 holidays, and 6 sick days every year (which means he actually works only 173 days per year). As I write this, I’ve just learned Smith’s original compensation demand to the finance committee was $63,000. You read that right – an EIGHTEEN THOUSAND DOLLAR annual increase. Now he’s apparently demanding $58,000, which would be a THIRTEEN THOUSAND DOLLAR annual increase. Even at the lesser amount, Smith’s latest salary demand would annualize to $72,500 per year for someone working a five-day work week. (His original demand would have annualized to an are-you-f*cking-kidding-me $78,750 per year for a five-day work week.)
As a taxpayer, I feel violated.
We have fewer than 900 people living in Clarkston and many of them aren’t paying property taxes because they’re children or don’t own homes. Smith has cost us a fortune over the last eight years through mismanagement and rookie mistakes, and if he had an honorable bone in his body, he would have resigned by now. But apparently, he’s quite the legend in his own mind if his salary demands are any indication. Honestly, if we have to pay the equivalent of $72,500 just for a city manager, then I have some thoughts: 1. Fire Smith and hire someone who is actually capable for the money; or 2. Contract out the work with a professional city manager; and 3. Beat down the doors of your legislators to ask for a change to state law that will make it easier for two public bodies to combine because we literally cannot afford to be a city if we have to pay these kinds of salaries.
But these salary increases concern more than Smith – even though he’s the greedy driving force behind them.
I’ve written about the .691 mill tax increase that’s coming your way here and here. Smith and council member Al Avery expressly admitted that most of the .691 mill tax increase you will be forced to hand over every year will be used to pay for increased employee salaries for four people – more precisely, $37,000 in giant compensation increases based on Smith’s May 12, 2025, presentation for the city council. This will raise the employee compensation budget 28% and the money to do this will be paid from the approximately $44,000 the city will gain from the .691 mill tax increase on us. Avery admitted the council knows you wouldn’t vote “yes” for this tax increase if you were asked. (No kidding!) That’s why the council supports increasing your taxes and taking money away from you – without asking – by using a loophole that doesn’t require they ask. It’s disgusting and dishonorable, but you can’t fix a lack of integrity with a lawsuit. Believe me – if it were possible, I would have asked my lawyer to draw up the lawsuit complaint already.
Smith discussed his purported “budget challenges” at the May 12, 2025, city council meeting. Excluding the giant compensation bump to be split among four office employees (including Smith), it’s obvious the city could easily cover cost increases for contracted services with other municipalities for police, assessing, and inspections through the natural increase in property tax revenue the city will enjoy this year. The city is also sitting on almost $97,000 representing a partial refund of fourteen years of police and fire overpayments that mostly occurred through the negligence of two of the employees who are going to receive these giant increases – Smith and the treasurer. The city council refuses to hold any city employees responsible for that debacle because no one ever gets fired or disciplined when taxpayer dollars are squandered. (Smith wants to benefit from his own negligence and keep the $97,000 for his pipe dream of repaving the downtown for the benefit of the businesses.)
But this post is supposed to be about Angela Guillen, the contract clerk Smith expects to hire on July 1 at the start of the new fiscal year. Apparently, Smith is infatuated not only with himself, but also with Ms. Guillen.
So, let’s get to that.
Last year, Ms. Guillen sent a resume to the city to express interest in our then open clerk position but declined the interview after she learned we didn’t offer health insurance benefits. She suddenly appeared as a contract employee in city hall before last November’s election. I’ve heard through the grapevine that someone referred her to Smith, but I don’t have any information regarding who it was. But that’s when Smith’s love affair began along with his nearly constant whining that “we have to have her” and “we need to do everything we can” to hire her. Smith even suggested Ms. Guillen’s hire had something to do with whether “we are going to be a city or not.”
I won’t rehash all the details described in previous posts about how we got here except to remind you that Smith’s insane fixation on Ms. Guillen will come at a great cost to taxpayers. We were forced to pay up to $4,000 for a biased salary survey to justify meeting Ms. Guillen’s compensation demands (that also resulted in Smith’s salary demands). And of course, if we’re paying Ms. Guillen a richer salary, this means the other two office employees need to get more to even things out. And Smith is the apex predator in the world of Clarkston city hall employee salaries, so he needs to be paid a lot more than the clerk, right? (Oh, what a tangled web we weave . . .)
The bottom line is this has resulted in a budget proposal to increase employee salaries and benefits by just about $37,000 (which was originally even higher than that!), representing a 28% increase in the employee compensation budget. It also requires the city council’s breaching its promise that it would never raise our taxes by the .691 mills relating to the 2014 library proposal that you can read about here and here. (And if you’d like to know more about how your taxes are calculated generally, I wrote about that here.) This latest tax increase is permanent, as are all the increased salaries that will serve as the base level for even higher salary and benefit demands in future years that Smith will be pushing through for himself and everyone else.
So, who is Angela Guillen? I don’t know her personally. She might be awesome and wonderful. But this isn’t about whether she’s nice or not, whether she’s competent or not (because she appears to be), or whether people like her. This is about raising our damned taxes by .691 mills rather than contracting with Independence Township, Oakland County, or some other municipality for election services for what would probably be a lot less money.
I have years of human resources experience, have hired hundreds of people, and it’s probably not much of a stretch to say I’ve interviewed close to a thousand people to fill those hundreds of jobs. After Smith’s insane insistence that Ms. Guillen is the only one in the world who can handle Clarkston elections, and his refusal to consider the cost of contracting election services out rather than hire someone when he’s apparently explored contracting out almost every other city employee task, my curiosity was piqued.
Smith mentioned Ms. Guillen had worked as the City of Howell’s clerk, and a quick online search revealed she’d abruptly left that job after a short period of time. That seemed pretty weird to me. So, I started digging into Ms. Guillen’s background to learn more by sending FOIA requests to her government employers. After all, Smith apparently thinks she walks on water, I’m forced to pay her salary, and there was no way in Hades that Smith was going to do any basic background work that would uncover something he didn’t want to know.
Ms. Guillen has had many government and non-government employers, and other than her extended employment with Munday Township, she doesn’t seem to stay in her government jobs very long. She left Mundy Township four years ago in February 2021, and since that time, she’s worked for six other employers – the City of Howell, Davison Township, Howell Township, Rose Township, the City of Montrose, and the City of the Village of Clarkston. Some of this work has been contract work, some of it overlaps, and you should look at all the records I’ve attached and decide whether you would consider her to be a job hopper. If I were hiring her, I would want to explore these job changes more thoroughly and hear what she has to say about it. After all, Smith is turning the city’s finances upside down just to hire her (and reward himself). No matter what we pay her, it would appear from her record that she’s always looking for the next big opportunity, so I wonder how long it will be before she leaves Clarkston, creating a bigger mess than we have now. 🤔
Only Ms. Guillen’s government employment records are available through a FOIA request. Truthfully, her work for government employers, particularly in clerk-related jobs, was all I cared about. Smith could have obtained information from every one of her public and private employers if he chose to, but I doubt he did. Failing to adequately research (and failing to accept responsibility for screw ups) would be consistent with the way Smith has approached everything else in his eight years as the Clarkston city manager – why would this time be different? (But let’s give him a gold star and a GIANT raise!)
I asked for basic information from Ms. Guillen’s previous employment at Mundy Township, Davison Township, City of Howell, Howell Township, City of Montrose, and Rose Township; I also asked for some of the information she provided to Clarkston. My non-Clarkston FOIA requests asked for a resume, application, dates of employment, job titles with dates, salary history with dates, disciplinary notices, performance reviews, resignation letters, public announcements regarding any reasons for departures, and any contracts of employment.
As I started receiving responses to my public records requests, I became concerned about a number of what I think of as “red flags” (areas of concern meriting further inquiry). If I were considering hiring her, I would have lot of questions before I extended an offer of employment. It’s entirely possible she might have satisfactory answers, but I wouldn’t know until I asked the questions – and that’s why I chose not to immediately publish the records. I believe Clarkston taxpayers are entitled to answers as well since we’ll be paying her salary and suffering the consequences if her employment here ends badly.
Even though Smith would be Ms. Guillen’s supervisor, I didn’t send the information I found directly to him because I have zero confidence and trust that he would consider anything he didn’t want to hear, or anything that would stand in the way of his heart’s desire to hire Ms. Guillen. And, as I’ve pointed out over and over on this website, Smith will say whatever he needs to say to get what he wants, even when it requires a lie. I wanted Smith to see the records, but I also wanted someone else to witness what was in them besides Smith.
So, I mentioned what I was finding in Ms. Guillen’s government employee records to mayor Sue Wylie. She asked that I provide her with copies of the records before I published them, and I agreed to that because I wanted Ms. Guillen to give her side of some events that looked pretty bad to me. I had an extended face-to-face meeting with mayor Wylie and sent additional records that came in after our meeting. Wylie promised she would discuss the records with Smith as well as the finance committee. After learning the finance committee was given only an oral summary from Smith and Wylie rather than actual copies of the records to review, and knowing that would be insufficient and likely leave important things out, I sent a full set of records to the finance committee members and every city council member (since city council has to confirm any clerk appointment).
Do you remember hearing any public discussion about the red flags in Ms. Guillen’s employment history? From anyone? I don’t either. Do you recall a public interview of Ms. Guillen where any questions were asked? No, because there wasn’t one. My conclusion is the council doesn’t care about any red flags and will support Smith’s desire to hire Ms. Guillen at any cost – to taxpayers.
Since we’ve now been told we can expect a .691 mill increase that’s primary purpose is to allow the city to hire Ms. Guillen, and secondarily to give the other three office employees an increase to their wages and benefits (including Smith) because Guillen’s requested compensation package is so high, I’m ready to share the public records that I received. I hope that this leads to some satisfactory public explanations from Ms. Guillen, but even if that’s not the case, at least you’ll know what Smith and your city council know. I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions about whether you think Ms. Guillen is a good overall hire, even though she seems to have experience with elections, because the evaluation of a good hire includes job conduct as well as job experience.
I’ll provide my summary and questions, and I’ll link to the records so that you can see them yourself. These records are not a secret – they are public records. The records contain a few redactions that were made by her public employers, and I’ve removed contact information as a courtesy to Ms. Guillen (even though contact information is also not a secret, its removal is optional under the FOIA statute, and I have zero obligation to Ms. Guillen to remove it either). FYI, I know Ms. Guillen became aware of my FOIA requests shortly after they were sent because she sent an identical request to my former employer. My government employment records are as public as hers are and she’s certainly entitled to them, but I can’t help but feel this was retaliatory. Perhaps she thought my employment records look like hers? They don’t, but only Ms. Guillen can explain her motivation. I mention this because that kind of behavior wasn’t surprising to me after reviewing her previous employment records.
Given the volume of the documents, I will provide a summary of most of the records as well as a link to all the documents for your review so that you can see everything I received. Most of the following is taken verbatim from the email I sent to your city council members and the finance committee. Please note the purple highlights and red boxes within the linked documents were added by me. I’ve also included links to (or copies of) relevant articles.
Mundy Township:
January 20, 2006, and January 23, 2006 – Applied for a treasurer position but was not selected.
July 12, 2016 – Applied for an assistant assessor position. Resume indicates work as an election chair from January 2006 “to present,” but since there was no salary history provided for this position and Ms. Guillen’s employee badge reflects an issue date of August 2016, this may have been an unpaid role.
August 15, 2016 – hired as an assistant assessor, which was a full time, non-exempt, hourly, unionized position with benefits paying $13.10/hour. The last wage rate Ms. Guillen received for this position was $15.94/hour.
April 20, 2017 – Documented “verbal consultation” for being observed out of her work area carrying a bin of absentee ballots which was not part of her job duties as an assistant assessor.
January 8, 2018 – Ms. Guillen filed a “discrimination/harassment complaint” alleging another employee orally attacked/orally assaulted her multiple times in front of a township resident; she claimed she was treated differently due to her age and because she was a newer employee. After an extensive investigation that included multiple written and oral witness statements, the township supervisor concluded both employees had acted in an unacceptable manner in the workplace, reminded them they’d work together in the future, and told them the incident would be documented in the file.
July 11, 2018 – Ms. Guillen was the only internal applicant for an administrative assistant position in the clerk’s office. The July 23, 2018, board minutes authorize hiring Ms. Guillen as “clerk’s administrative assistant.”
July 25, 2018 – “Verbal instruction” issued for spending more than thirty minutes engaged in discussion with a member of the public that included a personal discussion regarding diets. Ms. Guillen was told to refrain from lengthy discussions in the future.
September 4, 2018 – Ms. Guillen was hired as the clerk’s administrative assistant at a wage rate of $16.14/hour.
April 2, 2019 – Written reprimand for “violations of Policy and misuse/misappropriation of Township resources and time for personal gain or commercial ventures.” The reprimand related to Ms. Guillen’s use of township equipment to prepare a resume and cover letter to apply for outside employment as an accounting clerk at Flint Charter Township and for also forwarding her resume and cover letter while being compensated by Mundy Township to attend an election training event.
Ms. Guillen prepared August 24, 2020, September 14, 2020, and September 28, 2020, minutes on October 26, 2020. It’s unclear why they were late.
January 30, 2021 – minutes of a special meeting of the Howell City Council authorizing an offer to Ms. Guillen as the Howell city clerk were contained in Mundy Township’s files.
February 3, 2021 – resignation email.
February 3, 2021 – Memo from the township manager stating he discovered a note from Ms. Guillen at 5:45 p.m. advising that she wanted to speak to him. After going to Ms. Guillen’s office, he learned she was resigning but hadn’t told her department head, the clerk. The manager accompanied Ms. Guillen to the clerk’s office and also asked her to reduce her resignation to writing. Later that evening, the township manager, supervisor, attorney, and clerk conferred, and all decided to immediately accept Ms. Guillen’s resignation due to a concern that her deputy clerk position had significant responsibilities and access to “sensitive information, records, and software.” The next morning, in the presence of a union representative, Ms. Guillen was asked to leave as soon as she could pack her personal belongings. Her last wage rate was $16.14/hour.
October 30, 2023 – The township manager wrote an employment verification letter stating Ms. Guillen was employed as a deputy clerk from November 13, 2018, to February 4, 2021.
November 20, 2024 – FOIA response stated Ms. Guillen’s job title was “clerk admin assistant” from September 4, 2018, to February 4, 2021.
If I were asking the interview questions, I would want to know more about why Ms. Guillen was in possession of absentee ballots (that are supposed to be maintained in a secure manner) when she didn’t work for the clerk at the time; why she escalated a verbal altercation with a coworker to a “discrimination/harassment” complaint, a complaint that was determined to be unfounded; and I’d ask for more details about the verbal instruction for extensive personal discussions with the public and the more serious disciplinary notice for misusing public equipment for personal purposes (to apply for a job with another employer while being paid by Mundy Township taxpayers to do Munday Township work). I would want her to explain why she believes she was asked to leave her job immediately following her resignation rather than work for her entire notice period, and I definitely would ask her to sign a release so I could get a thorough explanation from her employer regarding why four Munday Township officials felt the need to convene a meeting immediately after learning about her resignation and why they thought that Ms. Guillen’s access to “sensitive information, records, and software” should be cut short.
Link to source material can be found here.
City of Howell:
January 3, 2021 – Ms. Guillen sent a cover letter and resume to the City of Howell for consideration for the opening for a clerk.
January 30, 2021 – minutes of a special meeting of the Howell City Council authorizing an offer to Ms. Guillen as the Howell city clerk.
February 1, 2021 – employment offer memorandum for $59,000/year, including retirement and group benefits.
February 8, 2021 – city council minutes announcing a February 16, 2021, start date.
February 18, 2021 – appointment memorandum.
February 22, 2021 – city council minutes approving appointment.
February 25, 2021 – WHMI (local radio station) article noting Ms. Guillen was sworn in during the Monday council meeting (February 22, 2021).
March 8, 2021 – City council minutes state Ms. Guillen was welcomed to her first Howell city council meeting.
September 13, 2021 – Ms. Guillen received a salary increase to $65,435 (wage study increase).
January 1, 2022 – Ms. Guillan received a second salary increase to $67,070.87 (2.5% increase).
February 16, 2022 – Ms. Guillen received third salary increase to $69,409.92 (annual increase).
May 9, 2022 – The city council held a closed session to “discuss personnel issues.” After returning to open session, the council voted unanimously “[t]o accept Angela Guillen’s resignation effective May 10, 2022, and have the Mayor execute an agreement between Angela Guillen facilitated by legal counsel.” This agenda item was immediately followed by a motion to appoint an interim city clerk effective May 10, 2022, and a full-time clerk effective May 19, 2022.
May 10, 2022 – General Release and Separation Agreement (signed by the mayor on May 9, 2022, and by Ms. Guillen on May 5, 2022). The agreement notes Ms. Guillen would receive six months of health benefits and wages ($34,704.96 using the February 16, 2022, salary increase). Howell agreed to provide a “neutral employment reference” limited to name, date of hire, resignation date, and stating the reason for Ms. Guillen’s separation from employment “was to pursue other professional opportunities.” Ms. Guillen waived her right to sue Howell, and the agreement stated it was intended to amicably resolve the matter and shouldn’t be construed as an admission of liability on the part of Ms. Guillen or Howell. (Note: there is no provision preventing Ms. Guillen from explaining the reasons for her separation from employment.)
May 10, 2022 – Livingston Post article noting Ms. Guillen’s resignation and the interim and full-time clerk appointments.
May 11, 2022 – WHMI article describing the closed session, the appointment of an interim and full-time clerk, and stating that a Howell press release wished Ms. Guillen well in her future endeavors.
If I were interviewing Ms. Guillen, I would insist on a fulsome explanation why she abruptly left the City of Howell after such a short period of time in such a highly unusual and secretive way. The agreement she signed does not prohibit her from talking about what happened. I would also insist on a written release from her so that I could speak to the City of Howell about the details of this unusual departure.
Link to source material can be found here.
Davison Township:
Ms. Guillen’s Clarkston resume states she worked for Davison Township as an election consultant from May 2022 to February 2023. The Davison Township treasurer’s initial response on November 26, 2024, denied my request for records stating “[i]ndividual has no employment history with Davison Township.” After a follow-up request for records pertaining to contract work, Davison Township provided records showing the following payments (listed newest to oldest):
November 14, 2022 – $457.50 for general election work on August 8, 2022 (4 hours), October 14, 2022 (4 hours), and November 4, 2022 (7.25 hours). Rate: $30 per hour.
August 9, 2022 – $396.86 payment for election assistance consulting fees (Davison Township provided only a check report without the backup for this payment.)
August 4, 2022 – $3,610 payment for election work and an election class between July 14, 2022, and August 3, 2022 (116 hours of work that supporting paperwork erroneously states was 117 hours of work).
June 9, 2022 – $180 payment for consulting fees to assist with elections and QVF (Qualified Voter File) setup.
May 25, 2022 – $200 payment for election inspector training classes conducted on May 14 and May 20 at $100 per class.
When reviewing the number of hours she worked per week and the gaps between weeks, it’s clear Ms. Guillen didn’t spend a lot of time working for Davison Township as a contractor. I’d like to know what else she was doing during that timeframe to earn a living.
Link to source material can be found here.
Howell Township:
The township provided a brief FOIA response that gave mostly written answers rather than records. The response states Ms. Guillen was an appointed deputy clerk who worked for Howell Township from September 6, 2022, to July 26, 2023, at a starting salary of $25.00/hour and an ending salary at the time of her “involuntary resignation” of $26.56/hour. The reason for the termination was listed as “clerk resigned and had to terminate deputy clerk appointment.”
May 18, 2023 – Ms. Guillan filed a complaint and grievance against the Howell Township Zoning Administrator alleging he “started screaming at [her] even after [she] asked him to lower his voice and to speak to [her] with respect.” Ms. Guillen alleged the incident was “a complete violation of [her] civil rights, hostile and unfair treatment.” The Human Resource Committee interviewed four people, including Ms. Guillen. The committee concluded that “[Ms. Guillen] interrupting and yelling at [the zoning administrator] and [the zoning administrator] raising his voice to talk over [Ms. Guillen] is rude and unprofessional, but none of these actions rises to the level of unlawful harassment . . . based on a protected classification of the other . . . [or] any violation of [Ms. Guillen’s] civil rights, nor was it hostile, nor was it unfair treatment.” A written reprimand was placed in both employees’ personnel files for their conduct.
July 26, 2023 – Email stating Ms. Guillen was terminated effective immediately.
An article in the East Village Magazine indicates Ms. Guillen applied for the Flint City Clerk position in 2022 while working for Howell Township.
If I were interviewing Ms. Guillen, I would want to know more about her termination from this position. It would appear that it was through no fault of her own, but it’s unusual that her termination would be effective immediately rather than after receiving some notice from the employer that this separation was coming. I’d also want more details about her altercation with the zoning administrator, since this is the second time her employment records reflect that a verbal altercation between Ms. Guillen and a coworker ended with Ms. Guillen filing what was later determined to be an unfounded harassment complaint against the coworker. The first time this happened was in 2018; the most recent event occurred just two years ago in 2023. Doing basic math based on the information in the records I received, I believe Ms. Guillen is probably in her 50s. I would be more concerned about an older adult acting this way than someone in their 20s who is new to the work force and who still needs to develop more maturity. I would want Ms. Guillen to explain whether she’s developed more constructive ways to handle the inevitable conflict that will occur with her Clarkston coworkers and the public.
Link to source material can be found here.
Rose Township:
The township responded to this FOIA request with records and written answers. The written answers stated Ms. Guillen was employed as a deputy clerk from September 2, 2023, to October 15, 2024. At the October 14, 2024, Clarkston city council meeting, Smith told the council that Ms. Guillen had resigned from Rose Township the previous week “because it wasn’t moving in the direction she wanted.” There is nothing in the Rose Township records addressing this.
Undated – Resume and cover letter from Ms. Guillen.
November 24, 2023 – Tri-County times article notes Ms. Guillen received her Certified Municipal Clerk designation.
April 10, 2024 – regular board of trustee minutes show Ms. Guillen as the recording secretary.
July 10, 2024 – regular board of trustee minutes discussing practice of extra payment to recording secretaries.
August 14, 2024 – regular board of trustee minutes requesting an opinion from the township’s CPA on the recording secretary payment practice.
September 11, 2024 – regular board of trustee minutes, motion to pay the recording secretary only for meetings actually attended and documented based on the CPA’s opinion.
October 9, 2024 – regular board of trustee minutes note that Ms. Guillen resigned, and the new deputy clerk was introduced.
November 20, 2024 – Earnings report for Ms. Guillen from September 1, 2023, through October 15, 2024.
If I were interviewing Ms. Guillen, I’d want to know more about her reasons for leaving Rose Township and why she claimed it wasn’t “moving in the direction she wanted” after spending just over a year of employment there.
Link to source material can be found here.
City of Montrose:
The City of Montrose was not initially forthcoming to my FOIA request, providing only dates of employment (August 14, 2023, to present). The resume Ms. Guillen provided to Clarkston did not mention the City of Montrose as an employer (she listed Rose Township as her last employer from 9/2023 to present).
The City of Montrose claimed it didn’t have a resume, application, any disciplinary notices, performance reviews, or any contract of employment records for Ms. Guillen. The clerk also claimed Ms. Guillen had no job title and the clerk purportedly didn’t understand my request for salary history. In a follow up response, the clerk stated Ms. Guillen assisted the city with “various tasks” and didn’t work there every day.
Eventually, the city sent payment records. These records reflect occasional work, as the Montrose clerk stated. It appears an earlier record is missing from the records provided because the year-to-date gross for the first payroll period doesn’t match the first paycheck (the year-to-date gross was $285 higher).
The earliest record from 8/14/23 shows Ms. Guillen sporadically worked for the Elections department and was paid $15/hour with no benefits, i.e., she was not full-time.
$15/hour – Elections Department
8-14-23 – 8-27-23 – 52 hours
8-28-23 – 9-10-23 – 31 hours
9-11-23 – 9-24-23 – 5 hours
10-9-23 – 10-22-23 – 1.5 hours
10-23-23 – 11-5-23 – 4.25 hours
11-8-23 – 11-19-23 – 4.5 hours
TOTAL 2023 hours @ $15/hour from 8-14-23 to 11-19-23 – 98.25 hours
1-1-24 – 1-14-24 – 9.25 hours
2-12-24 – 2-25-24 – 2.50 hours
5-8-24 – 5-19-24 – 7.75 hours
TOTAL 2024 hours @ $15/hour from 1-1-24 to 5-19-24 – 19.5 hours
On 8/26/24, the records show Ms. Guillen sporadically working in the Clerk’s department (i.e., not full-time). She was given an increase to $35/hour and started receiving mileage payments; I don’t have a record explaining the wage increase but in fairness to the City of Montrose clerk, that would have been outside my original request.
$35/hour – Clerk Department
8-26-24 – 9-8-24 – 6 hours
9-9-24 – 9-22-24 – 20.5 hours + mileage
9-23-24 – 10-6-24 – 6 hours + mileage
10-7-24 – 10-20-24 – 23.25 hours + mileage
TOTAL 2024 hours @ $35/hour from 8-26-24 – 10-20-24 – 55.75 hours
At the October 14, 2024, city council meeting, Smith told the council Ms. Guillen was working for the City of Montrose at a contract rate of $40/hour and suggested Clarkston should match that rate, which the council approved. The City of Montrose records show Ms. Guillen was working sporadically and the last rate they paid her was $35/hour, not $40/hour. (If a $5/hour difference were annualized – 40 hours a week x $5/hour – the difference would be $10,400/year.) I’d want to know who was responsible for the inflated hourly rate from $35 to $40 per hour. One of them wasn’t telling the truth about the actual hourly rate – was it Smith or Ms. Guillen?
Link to source material can be found here.
The city is apparently going to hire Guillen with no questions asked by the city council. Perhaps she’ll do a great job and will be here for many years. Or perhaps she’ll be gone the second something better comes along, which would be consistent with her past employment behavior. You shouldn’t be surprised if it’s the latter, but at that point, we’ll be stuck with significantly higher office salaries to support with our taxes, the city council will still have breached a promise with the taxpayers, and an obscenely compensated Smith will whine once again about an open clerk position rather than contract out the work with another public body.
Whatever happens, the blame rests on Smith and the city council, not Ms. Guillen. After all, how can you blame Ms. Guillen for treating Smith and the city council like the suckers they are? If someone was stupid enough to tell you over and over that you were the city’s election savior, wouldn’t you try to leverage that to get the best deal in salary and benefits you can while you wait for something better to come along?
The budget isn’t final until the final budget vote at the first June city council meeting on June 9, 2025. There will be a public hearing at the May 27, 2025, city council meeting. If you’re not happy with a .691 mill tax increase that will be used primarily to give four city employees almost $37,000 more in wages and benefits, then you need to let the city know by showing up at the meeting.
If you can’t come to the meeting, you can call the city at (248) 625-1559. Whoever answers the phone is one of the people who will receive a giant salary increase. Let them know what you think of that. Politely, of course.
You can also call city manager Jonathan Smith. His city cell phone number is (248) 909-3380 and he keeps his city cell phone with him at all times. Call whenever you want, and he’ll probably answer. Give him an earful but be polite. You can also email him at Smithj@villageofclarkston.org.
And you should definitely also email all your city council members because Smith can’t be trusted to forward comments that don’t support his higher tax plan.
You can email your city council members at the following addresses:
Sue Wylie, WylieS@VillageofClarkston.org
Laura Rodgers, RodgersL@VillageofClarkston.org
Gary Casey, CaseyG@VillageofClarkston.org
Amanda Forte, ForteA@VillageofClarkston.org
Erica Jones, jonese@VillageofClarkston.org
Ted Quisenberry, QuisenberryT@VillageofClarkston.org
Al Avery, averya@VillageofClarkston.org
Better yet, do all these things.