The upcoming mayor and councilmember elections are weirder than any others I remember in Clarkston. The mayor and most of the people interested in running for office managed to kick themselves off the ballot because of minor errors on their Affidavits of Identity. The one person who will be on the ballot didn’t make an error in her Affidavit of Identity, but she did make similar errors on her petitions that the city chose to ignore, which means her name will be the only one that is printed on the ballot. (Based on the names of the people who signed her petition, she appears to be very much aligned with the “Charming” group people who oppose the HDC charter amendment, and her signatures also include the guy who’s running the campaign against the amendment – even though he’s not a Clarkston voter.)
Had there been no Affidavit of Identity errors, our long-serving and well-loved mayor Sue Wylie would have been the only choice on the ballot for mayor. Wylie has lived in Clarkston since 1994 and served as an elected official since 2016. (She’s also a whip smart former high school chemistry teacher.) You may not always agree with Sue (I sure don’t) but no one can accuse her of not trying to follow her conscience, not treating resident concerns with respect, or not allowing people to express their opinions – whether she agrees with them or not.
Once it became clear that Wylie would be forced to run as a write-in candidate, Ted Quisenberry swooped in and started his own write-in campaign for mayor on September 13 that he calls “Citizens for a Friendly Government.” (I’ll let you decide whether that’s true or not; I don’t think it is.) Or maybe it’s “Retain Clarkston’s Charm.” Guess it depends on what day of the week it is or where you look.
Who the heck is Quisenberry? If Zillow is to be believed, he bought his home less than four years ago on December 29, 2020. Oakland County Elections data indicates he registered to vote on August 3, 2021. I recall he started attending city council meetings (and commenting) in 2023, and he ran for city council later that November as one of three council members running for three openings (meaning he would have won his seat simply by voting for himself).
I don’t have any objection to new people running for office or volunteering to serve on committees. You are welcome in the city, and you are welcome to ask for my vote. Full stop. Without you, the city couldn’t run, and I really dislike it when long-time residents treat newcomers as though they are stupid or unwelcome. However, I expect new (and old) city council members to listen to and respect residents when they bring concerns to a public meeting, I expect they will take the time to learn how government works by reading a book or taking the excellent class available through the Michigan Municipal League for new officials, and I expect them not to waste my tax dollars on stupid stuff.
Quisenberry isn’t one of those people. I’d like to do a look-back of the past eleven months when Quisenberry has been on the city council and let you decide whether he’s more deserving of your write-in vote than mayor Sue Wylie. I don’t think he is and will be voting for mayor Wylie. (Personally, I don’t think it’s even a close question.)
In the examples below, I’ve linked to video excerpts of several of Quisenberry’s comments at city council meetings. While he’s polite and doesn’t yell (always a plus), I don’t think he meets any of my more important expectations for a city council member (and definitely not for a mayor). I’ve linked to the Clarkston Sunshine informal transcripts of the meetings so you can read the text, and if you want to hear the video clip in context, it’s linked at the bottom of the individual Clarkston Sunshine posts.
At the February 26, 2024, city council meeting, the public endured an extensive sales pitch from a water filter company whose salespeople tried to convince the city council to spend $90,000 in taxpayer funds per year(!!) to buy water filters so the city could give them to us for “free.” (Makes total sense. 🙄) Quisenberry was quite impressed with the presentation and wanted to be sure buying water filters was “looked into” by the city, even though the salespeople admitted that anyone who wanted one of these super special water filters could buy it from them directly (and we could build a road every year for that amount of money). Fortunately, the rest of Quisenberry’s colleagues correctly thought spending $90,000 was a stupid idea and the issue died, as it should have. (I wrote about it here.)
At the March 11, 2024, city council meeting, Quisenberry dismissed a resident’s concern regarding how residents would be informed about discussions regarding potential changes to Depot Park. Though he’d only been a city council member for approximately four months at the time, Quisenberry claimed they’d “had this discussion amongst themselves and with other residents many times.” According to Quisenberry, not only should the city get an “A” in transparency, but residents, including the one before him asking for more information, were to blame if they don’t have information because the city apparently does everything perfectly when it comes to transparency. (Given the city’s extensive track record of hiding information from the public, most recently about the police and fire overpayments, I think this was really a “let them eat cake” moment for Quisenberry.)
At the April 8, 2024, city council meeting, Quisenberry argued in favor of spending several thousand dollars on a “Pony Cycle” memorial in Depot Park that honored the Hawke family, who, in addition to briefly manufacturing the silly-looking Pony Cycle they didn’t invent, were known for locking their Clarkston employees out of their Washington Street facility just before Christmas – and never opening again. Unfortunately, the families whose lives were destroyed by the Hawkes weren’t there to comment on the wisdom of spending taxpayer dollars to honor their former employer (and the Pony Cycle still hasn’t been installed). The money for this silly project was to be taken from the Friends of Depot Park, a volunteer group who uses their small budget to do things like paint and repair things in the park. I wrote about that here.
At the April 8, 2024, city council meeting, Quisenberry also advocated for wasting taxpayer dollars so the council could get outside “expert” help for the city manager’s performance review. In Quisenberry’s mind, it was just far too complicated for city council members to give feedback to our $45,000/year, part-time city manager, even though he reports directly to the city council and speaks to them at every council meeting about projects that he’s working on and issues that arise (as well as any time they want to pop into the office and ask questions). I think our council members are fully capable of telling the city manager how he’s doing without having to spend any taxpayer dollars on experts.
For some reason, Quisenberry didn’t come to the meeting when the performance review subcommittee was established, yet he continued to insist the city should spend taxpayer dollars to review the city manager – admittedly without knowing the cost of the outside review process he was asking for. In the end, a city council subcommittee prepared a draft performance review that any city council member could have provided input on and presented it to council for approval – without charging the taxpayers. Thank you to every council member for that (except Quisenberry).
At the August 26, 2024, city council meeting, after spending almost ten months on the city council at that point, Quisenberry was still clueless about the difference between budgeted funds and approved funds (which probably explains a lot about why he’s been in favor of wasting so many taxpayer dollars). Quisenberry didn’t think the city manager should have to come back to the council for approval of expenditures greater than $500 (which is what our ordinance requires) if there was money available in the budget for the expense.
Quisenberry also dismissed concerns about the Historic District Commission (HDC) resident abuse as “hearsay” at the August 26, 2024, city council meeting. Why? Because he didn’t personally have that experience, and he hasn’t personally heard the complaints. Why? Because many of them happened before Quisenberry moved here and he wasn’t a council member at the time the complaints were made. Quisenberry takes the position that he’s not going to believe any complaints about HDC abuse unless everyone who has a complaint comes to a city council meeting and tells him about it personally (though I suspect he would be as dismissive of any person making a complaint about the HDC as he was when he dismissed the resident who was concerned about Depot Park).
These video clips are of things that are top of mind to me. I don’t think anyone can say the city is transparent; I don’t want my tax dollars wasted on Pony Cycle memorials, water filters, and “experts” to do a simple performance review; I think dismissing HDC abuse because you haven’t personally heard about it, asked about it, or haven’t experienced it yourself is unforgivable; and I think it’s beyond incompetent after almost a year to not yet understand that just because something is budgeted, it doesn’t mean the money can be spent without further approval or consideration. I don’t know anyone who budgets that way, and I don’t want my elected officials to do it either.
Though I’ve decided to vote for Mark Lamphier for council (and Sue Wylie for mayor), I honestly don’t have more comments on other council candidates at this point except to say I’m definitely not voting for the one person whose name appears on the ballot. I think she received an unfair advantage and should also have had to run as a write-in due to her petition errors, just as the other candidates were forced to run as write-ins for their small affidavit errors. I also don’t appreciate her alignment with the people opposed to the HDC charter proposal. It’s one thing to disagree in principle and have an honest discussion. It’s quite another to associate so extensively with people who have no qualms about pushing actual lies out to the public with the express intention of deliberately scaring people about imaginary things just so they can get their way on a ballot issue.
Qui cum canibus concumbunt cum pulicibus surgent (they who lie with dogs will rise with fleas). I’ll just leave it at that.