To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
(Editor’s Note: Susie Shipman maps out how elected officials, appointed commission members, and Township staff are working productively and cooperatively with fellow citizens to solve local problems and make the Old Mission Peninsula a better place to live and work. -jb)
I have been dismayed to see so many attacks and criticism of our fellow citizens and neighbors who serve on our Township Board. Not only is it wearing and discouraging to experience so much negativity, but it is not an accurate representation. I have extensive experience interacting with our staff and board members, and I want to offer a more positive perspective.
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Keep the Gazette Going.
Some of our residents are being led to believe that all sorts of nefarious things are taking place at the Township, and that scare tactic can create a narrative that resonates on social media — a “throw the bums out” approach that is negative and short-sighted. But my own personal experiences lead me to speak up for our people (staff, elected officials, and committee/commission members), processes and governance.
Regarding transparency, not only did the Township attorney, who represents some 80 other municipalities, make it clear that proper procedure is being followed, he also made it clear that our Township goes above and beyond what most municipalities do to ensure transparency and follow fully legal procedures.
As a long-time member of two of the Township bodies — the Park Commission (formerly elected, now an appointed committee) starting in 2012, and now as a member of the Planning Commission for several years — from day one I was guided to follow strict transparency and good governance policies and procedures, and the importance of listening to and learning from public input.
It’s not just lip service, it’s what is expected and what is followed. I am proud to serve as a part of a municipal body that takes integrity and transparency so seriously. This is a collection of good people who work hard for our community.
I’d like to hearken back to a joint meeting of the Township Board and Planning Commission that remains a pivotal moment for me, but it’s ultimately a positive one. Some members of our community created a very scary narrative that an ordinance change for building height was going to be rammed through without the public knowing, etc. etc. So, a great many citizens filled the town hall, and many were angry.
What came out of the evening was a long comment period of people expressing that fear and anger. It was tough to listen to, mostly because I hate that my neighbors were unnecessarily driven to such fear and anger. What happened next was that a joint committee was created on the spot that included staff, residents and building/construction professionals to work together to come up with a solution that was reasonable, which they did.
This is a great example of how elected officials, appointed commission members, and township staff want to and do work productively with fellow citizens to solve our local problems and make our community a better place to live and work.
Some might think the building height committee wouldn’t have happened without the anger, but I wholeheartedly disagree. These productive committees happen all the time without the anger.
Over the years, I’ve been involved in a number of ad-hoc committees that have formed and worked just this way: the park planning committee for the Bowers Harbor Park expansion, the Master Plan update committee, the initial gatherings of ag producers and wineries that was starting on a productive path to work together to amend the ordinance (was necessarily paused during the initial months of Covid, but then the wineries suddenly filed the current lawsuit), and currently, the non-motorized transportation working group that just achieved full funding through two grant awards to start the planning process that will include even more extensive public outreach and engagement. See also our new agricultural advisory committee!
What bothers me about that joint building height meeting is not that so many people showed up — that’s good — but that people were led to believe false claims about the process, and were therefore scared and angry. Our community should not be manipulated in this way.
There is also a negative narrative regarding the Township letter to MDARD responding to a request for comment on the Draft 2025 Right to Farm – Farm Market GAAMPS; that the Township didn’t consult farmers (and so they must be “anti-farmer”). The suggestion that pre-meeting drafting of documents is somehow nefarious verges on ridiculous, since this is how meeting documents come together.
As well, any farmer has their own mechanism to provide comment to MDARD representing their personal opinions – but the letter from the Township was written, reasonably so, as a municipal opinion, regarding matters that pertain to issues faced by a municipal body, simply asking for clarity.
This is appropriate and doesn’t cut out farmers at all. The farming community has every opportunity to provide direct feedback to MDARD. An email went out from MDARD to notify the entire statewide farm community of the opportunity to comment on Farm Market GAAMPS from the perspective of farmers.
And there are incredibly negative and false narratives around the winery lawsuit, that there was a settlement agreement the Town Board came to and then backed out of (Editor’s Note: Read Becky Chown’s piece on “The Winery Lawsuit Settlement That Wasn’t” here. -jb), and that the Town Board is hiding details the public should know.
This is a challenging situation: there are a lot of complex elements that a municipal body would need to navigate as a part of such a difficult legal situation, and it’s plainly unrealistic to think all such matters could or should be openly discussed in the public sphere. The current Town Board, including those running for re-election, has shown commitment to the fiduciary responsibility of this municipal body to protect ALL of the township residents in this litigation, whether residential or agricultural or commercial.
And finally, there is a narrative I’ve seen that the Master Plan was put through without adequate public engagement. I cannot express strongly enough how far this is from reality. Just ask any of the many citizens who gave their time and effort to participate at all of the public committee meetings over the year and half we met, or the many residents who participated in the citizen survey process.
And there were numerous public meetings and formal public hearings. And … soon the process will begin yet again with a new citizen survey, because these community documents — the Master Plan and ordinances — are living things that are endlessly changing and being updated, and always with public input.
The Township operations and our ordinances are not a perfect system, but it’s impossible to have a system that every resident and business would think is perfect. We can and should acknowledge that it’s okay to be frustrated and express disagreement, it’s okay to say there are areas that need improvement to make processes easier and more efficient for residents to navigate, and we can — and do — work toward that improvement.
I’ve been a part of a number of ordinance amendments where board members and staff worked collaboratively with residents/businesses who brought a request for change forward – this is how it can and should work. To attack our elected fellow citizens and neighbors or our Township staff personally, with vitriol, is not called for. We can accomplish more by working together.
My observation over several years now is that Isaiah Wunsch and Dave Sanger are supportive of open public processes to improve our ordinance and take very seriously their obligation to protect our community from fiduciary harm. They have my vote.
-Susie Shipman
(Read all Peninsula Township Election 2024 News, Opinions and Candidate Questionnaires here. -jb)
Also Read…
SUPPORT YOUR INDEPENDENT LOCAL NEWSPAPER: I started Old Mission Gazette in 2015 because I felt a calling to provide the Old Mission Peninsula community with local news. After decades of writing for newspapers and magazines like the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Family Circle and Ladies' Home Journal, I really just wanted to write about my own community where I grew up on a cherry farm and raised my own family. So I started my own newspaper.
Because Old Mission Gazette is a "Reader Supported Newspaper" -- meaning it exists because of your financial support -- I hope you'll consider tossing a few bucks our way if I mention your event, your business, your organization or your news item, or if you simply love reading about what's happening on the OMP. In a time when local news is becoming a thing of the past, supporting an independent community newspaper is more important now than ever. Thank you so much for your support! -Jane Boursaw, Editor/Publisher, Old Mission Gazette
To keep the Gazette going, click here to make a donation.
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
While I can agree with the sentiment the proof is in the pudding. The building height experience is a perfect example. That committee was only the result of citizens showing up and expressing their dismay.
There was never a call for the committee to be formed until the community showed up. You know it and they knew it. Yes it was angry because people knew this would have been passed if they had not shown up. And remember part of the plan was to cut short the opportunity to comment by having the planning commission meet at the same time as the board. This is not the way it used to be with both meetings separate, thus giving sufficient time to reflect on issues raised at the one before it goes to the next. I don’t mind the criticism I receive for bringing these issues to the attention of our citizens. I appreciate the work and time people like you devote to the town committees. I do think however that the spirit of cooperation needs to include acceptance of criticism. I am always happy to enter into dialogue here or in person with anyone who thinks my views are wrong.
Finally with regard to the MDARD comments by the township don’t you think when the township speaks on an issue that directly concerns its farmers it has an obligation to consult with them. They are not speaking for themselves they are speaking for the town. It’s a shame that people are missing that point.
Let’s assume for a minute the state asked for comments on reopening bluff road and the town submitted its own comments without citizen input or specifically asking the residents of what bluff road thought. Would you still argue hey you could submit comments why do you care what the town says. I guess you miss the import of when a town speaks the generally understood point is that they speak on behalf of the citizens and especially the ones most impacted by it. Sorry but that secret exercise showed the contempt the town has for its citizens and farmers. Once they finalized their comments they could have made them public to give citizens the right to react directly to them or to the MDARD. They chose to release them after it was too late to comment on them. That was purposeful. Finally it seems that the argument that the town lawyer is all knowing falls flat on those of us who are lawyers. There is no lawyer that wins every argument or case. There are nuanced reasons for every court decision and attorneys on both sides would say my argument is the winning one. This is proven over and over every day. And in the current lawsuit the judge has shown that to be true. He ruled in favor of some arguments and against others on both sides. So I guess the Fahey law firm is not omniscient! I look forward to this new and much needed spirit of cooperation.
Thanks Susie. I appreciate your service, perspective and sense of order and civility.
Well said Susie
“I have been dismayed to see so many attacks and criticism of our fellow citizens and neighbors who serve on our Township Board. Not only is it wearing and discouraging to experience so much negativity, but it is not an accurate representation.”
This. This is what exhausts me: people who are intentionally creating chaos in order to divide communities. It’s been gaining steam for about 8 years now and it’s insidious and dangerous. My own experience with this type of bullying was as an elementary teacher back in 2018 when a group of parents decided to create all sorts of erroneous stories about teachers (in general) in order to instill doubt and fear in our community. It was all lies and tragically it will take years for the community to heal from such destruction. Not confined to just my school district, this is happening all over the country, and not just in education; if you work in the public service industry, you are a target.
I’m not not going to pretend to be knowledgeable about everything that has occurred with our township over the past 8 or so years but I’ve witnessed enough of the onslaught towards those who serve the public to know we can no longer believe everything we see and hear; Susie’s account of the joint building height meeting is a perfect example of what can happen when we do. I believe, by and large, the people who serve the public do so with good hearts.
So thank you, Susie. Thank you for providing us with a firsthand glimpse of your experience with our trustees. We cannot stand by and allow people to desecrate the character of good people. We need to call it out. I have been absolutely gobsmacked by the number of assaults on the people who work for OMP, so the biggest “thank you” to those people who work tirelessly to keep our “slice of heaven” so incredibly beautiful; we are indebted to you.