Is Councilman Thomas Dearborn or Florida Resident?
Councilman Doug Thomas
Does Dearborn Councilman Doug Thomas live in Dearborn or Bonita Springs, Florida?
Dearborn resident and former council candidate Nancy Siwik says the councilman is a Florida resident and should be removed from office and erased from the November ballot because he is in violation of the City Charter.
Ms. Siwik presented the City Council with documents Monday evening that she says supports her claim that the legal residency of Councilman Thomas is a condominium in the city of Bonita Springs, Florida, and not Dearborn.
Ms. Siwik asked the City Council to have Dearborn’s legal department look into the matter and remove Thomas from his position as a councilman and from the November ballot because he is not a Dearborn resident, which is a requirement of Dearborn’s City Charter.
Ms. Siwik presented property data that shows Doug and Jane Thomas homestead a condo on 25900 Hickory Blvd., in Bonita Springs, which makes it their principal residence.
At the meeting Monday, Thomas said his Michigan Driver’s license proved he lived at 511 Elmwood in Dearborn, a property currently listed for sale at $239,000, according to documents Siwik presented council members Monday night. Thomas did not deny the existence of a home in Florida but said it was homestead in his wife’s name.
Council President Thomas Tafelski tried to bring the discussion to a close after those remarks from Thomas, saying it was becoming “political.”
Siwik took umbrage with Tafelski’s comment. She came back to the microphone and explained that her actions were not political, pointing out that she no longer was on the ballot for council and that she waited until after her primary loss to bring this news about Thomas into the open.
Before taking her seat, Siwik reminded council members that neither Michigan nor Florida law allows people to list more than one dwelling as a “principal residence” in order to take the tax exemptions that come with such a designation.
What action Dearborn’s legal department now takes next could determine the political career of Councilman Thomas.
October 10th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Glad to see the spirited responses. Here’s mine.
Council Watcher, I agree with your assessment on Tafelksi and Darany. The only thing in my mind that differentiates Thomas from them (strictly in a “non rubber stamp” sense) is that he will mix it up and not simply cast a dissenting vote. I know Tafelski and Darany both stated their reasons for those votes, but neither did anything to elicit any comments from the council people who voted “yes”.
If a council person just votes “no” and doesn’t voice their opposition stance with some oomph it’s difficult to discern their reasoning. Furthermore, it raises the question of why the other council people voted “yes.” Where did the schism happen? What’s the disagreement over? These are questions that don’t get answered when you don’t have someone to step on some toes.
Also, I think it’s unfair to characterize Thomas (again, strictly concerning his role in policy decisions) as just another whiny, parochial politician. Since the council is non partisan and Thomas has disagreed with both Republicans and Democrats (although they aren’t officially labeled as such) it suggests to me that he is a man wary of those with the most power, not a partisan-type hack. In my book, skepticism — especially when it comes to spending other people’s money — is not a bad thing.
Dearborn Mom, I’m sorry if I did not articulate my thoughts well enough. I’m not advocating anyone vote for or against Doug Thomas or to support or not support some sort of removal procedure by the council. I am simply making some observations about the dynamics of the council and what role Thomas plays.
As for Nancy Siwik, she chose to put her life in the public when she twice ran for office, I agree. But – and this is important – she isn’t actively campaigning for any office currently and she holds no elective position either. The time for vetting was then, not now.
As one poster mentioned above, this seems like a text book case of shooting the messenger. Do we really want to assassinate the character or conduct of people who are willing to speak up when they see something that, at least on its face, appears to be a deal-breaking offense committed by a public servant? I would sure hope not; especially coming from your quarters, Ms. Rulemeister.
October 10th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
If Siwik does not attempt a run at the next council election, I will then apologize profusely for my accusations. But until such time, I maintain my belief that Siwik is actively campaigning for the next council election and her actions against Doug Thomas were exactly for that reason.
As for Siwik being the messenger, she said it at the city council meeting … but she wasn’t the messenger. Anyone in this city who reads the paper, follows the blogs, and keeps up on what is going on in Dearborn knew that there was a question about Doug Thomas’s residency. Siwik was just the one who brought it up at a council meeting.
As for rules, big or small, follow them or shut your mouth and keep to your own business.
— Ms. Rulemeister
October 11th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Dearborn Mom a.k.a. Ms. Rulemeister,
So do you consider all the candidates who lost in the primary still actively campaigning for an election that is still more than four years away or is it just Siwik? Either seems patently ridiculous. Presidential campaigns don’t even start until two years before an election year, yet the Dearborn City Council is such a plum job that we have people campaigning four years out? Right.
And while Siwik’s actions were political by the very definition of the word, I fail to see how they are politically self-serving, which I think is what most people are getting at. It seems pretty obvious that if Siwik was looking out for her own political ambitions she would have leveled this charge a long time ago. She would have assumed Thomas’ seat on the Council and you seem to imply that is her overriding goal (a seat on council). As you said yourself, this information about Thomas has been public for quite some time. Siwik must have some seriously elaborate Machiavellian scheme if she waited until now — when she is essentially a political non-entity — to release this information. I just can’t see how that adds up.
Also, you seem to downplay that Siwik was the person who actually brought it up at the council meeting. Isn’t that important? You have expressed your displeasure with Thomas’ situation, yet when someone actually tries to do something about it you jump all over them. What gives?
October 11th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
I wish we could require city residency of all Dearborn employees who derive their incomes and benefits from property tax dollars generated by Dearborn businesses and residents, including police, firefighters, teachers. Unfortunately, the residency requirement is restricted to a minority of such employees because of court rulings. In some cases, it seems less important for a council employee to reside in the city limits as opposed to an emergency responder…
October 11th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Johnny Cakes — I can be unhappy Siwik for her motives (among other things) and be displeased with Thomas’s deciet as well … the two feelings can exist simultaneously.
You bring up presidential races … there are several who are not so subtly campaigning for the 2012 presidential election … as Siwik is campaigning for the next city council election.
It is what it is, you won’t change my opinion and I won’t change yours.
October 12th, 2009 at 9:18 am
I really think this issue will eventually boil down to a few things (in no particular order):
1. Here are two quotes from the Dearborn City Charter:
Section 6.2. Qualifications of elective officers.
No person shall become a candidate or hold elective office under this charter
unless that person is a resident for one year, has never been convicted of a felony and is a registered voter of the City.
(The Charter does not stipulate residency i.e. “full-time”, “primary”, etc)
Section 7.2. Judge qualification of members.
The Council shall be the judge of the qualifications of its members, subject only to review by the courts on facts and law.
(Self explanatory. The other council members will ultimately judge the outcome. No mention of the legal department’s involvement.)
Ambiguous enough for you? Why would the City Attorney be involved at this point?
2. Which department is, in reality, in charge of confirming a candidates Dearborn residency?
One would expect that the City Clerks office would confirm residency BEFORE accepting any application from a potential candidate.
3. Will the Council answer the issue in good faith since they are the ultimate judge?
Indeed, what this smells like is more a tax evasion issue than a residency issue.
To Johnny Cakes: Thank you for the acknowledgement. Right back atcha.
To DearbornMom: We allow debate on rules and laws. Rules can be amended. Laws can be changed. That’s the beauty of our system of government. I shudder to think that in your assessment, one would not have the right to challenge rules and laws in government. There is a big difference in ‘high standards” and “rules”. They are mutually exclusive.
Finally, a classic move on the part of Councilperson Thomas to blame the City of Bonita Springs for bad tax advice.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:21 am
YoungGibraltar says:
noone wants a rubber stamper… yur right
Actually, I think that’s exactly what Mr. O wants…
…get ready for Guido’s next term…
October 12th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Walling was quoted in the Press and Guide as saying “her department and the City Clerk’s Office would continue to investigate Siwik’s claims. Clearly this is a pressing issue.” I wonder just how long this will take – the council only has 2 meeting before the election.
Also in the Press and Guide – the LWV is conducting a forum for position of mayor at 7:00 pm Tuesday (10/13) at the Dbrn Public Schools Office on Audette.
October 12th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Anthony — My “high standards” … follow the laws and ordinances. If you don’t like them, challenge them through the appropriate channels … when did I say people can’t or shouldn’t do that?