Its not a union issue unless the members of that union are concerned. Some are and some are not.

And I never said he wanted to come back. I was only pointing out it is something that is done and not a strange situation.

It does not just apply to chiefs either. There are several positions within various departments that are appointed (your capitan being an example) where it is agreed you are allowed to revert to your last civil service position if demoted.

As you are aware demotion may be for many reasons including both competance or politics. When politics is involved then I find no problem with the chance to remain employed at your last civil service position.

Just out of curiosity, in those jurisdictions where a demoted officer is allowed to revert to his previously held civil service position, what happens to the person who replaced him or her when they were promoted? Does that person get bumped down a position? That would not seem fair to that person if the demotion takes place several years later, as in Ray Sowers case. I am surprised that a union would condone that, especially when the demoted person is no longer a member of the union.

In this case, the assistant chief is assuming the chief role. This is simply a reshuffle of the people in the department.

If the financial issues being investigated by the auditors office turn out to be not a big deal, I hope Ray stays with the department. I have to agree with the mayor however, that the current personal issues are incompatible with being chief.

That said, I have a lot of respect for the councilpeople who voted against demoting Ray and wonder what they know that I don't.

As it has not come up (the bump), I really don't know.

http://www.thevidette.com/

According to the Washington State Patrol, Sowers approximately $10,000 of city money, on personal items. I wonder where the "checks & balances" are. Who "ok's" these purchases? How long has this been going on?

This comes as the City of Montesano is attempting to annex outlying areas in order to increase revenue. Good job guys!!

Yup. Sometimes when you vote for change, that's exactly what you get.

It's worth noting that the first incidence of theft identified by the auditor occurred in January 2008, the month that Ron Schillinger took office and forced out the long-time clerk-controller.

Ron's campaign slogan was "Value your employees". This was a message that resonated with his former co-workers who were also his campaign staff and their support paid off. Shortly after taking office he fired the contract negotiators and gave the employees more money than they'd been asking for. I doubt there's anyone else in the state who got a 27% pay increase right in the middle of a recession.

Realizing that he wasn't going to be able to continue paying the bills given Montesano's small and finite tax base, he quadrupled inside city water rates for some customers which prior to that point were kept low because of the revenue that the forest harvest provided. (He always resented the idea that "his" forest was used in this way).

So now that he's added hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenses (while reducing level of service), and hundreds of thousands of dollars to taxes, he wants to browbeat outlying neighborhoods into joining the city. He was quoted in a recent Vidette as saying that "we as staff intend to proceed (with annexation, despite opposition)". News flash Ron; you are not staff. You are supposed to be representing the public.

The problem in Montesano is that the monkeys run the zoo. I'm frankly surprised that anyone actually looked into Ray's spending.

Now they want residents in outlying areas to pay for their mistakes, (as well as cover the costs of someones idealized wet dream of what Montesano should be like).

Schillinger is a piece of work. I am surprise that no one has put him in his place. Agreed, the patients are indeed running the asylum.

I really liked Ron as when he was the forester. I found him to be a smart guy and a conscientious steward of the public resource.

As mayor, he's done just about everything that a public official should not do.

At one time, there were a lot of reasons why outlying communities would want to be annexed. Few of those reasons hold true today.

For a resident already attached to the city via sewer, water police and fire services, I can understand the argument. However, for residents that are unattached it makes little sense. Especially when the cost falls upon their backs to pick up the tab for connecting to water and sewer.

I live in one of the areas talked about. I understand that there are a lot of intense feelings regarding annexation. There also is a lot of misinformation. I chose to live here because it's a great neighborhood, but also because of being connected to Montesano.
Montesano, with all of its faults, is a great town. We have benefited by being connected to Montesano. I understand the concerns that we are benefiting from our connection, but not significantly participating in it's upkeep. I consider myself a Montesano resident. When someone asks me where I live, it's never, "I live just outside of Montesano."

Just as an FYI -
Water rates are one and a half times more because we live outside of Monte;
Most everyone will save money, not a lot, if annexed. Break even was based on 150K home. Very few, if any, homes in these areas are valued at 150K;
Sewer hook up was not part of requirement. Additionally, most of the homes in Val Vista were built in the early 70s. Drain fields and septics are going to start failing at some point. I tried to buy in Central Park, and know how hard to was to get a new drain field approved. We basically live on a rock.