By C.J. Carnacchio
Leader Editor
Last week’s Oxford Village Council meeting was more like a meeting of the Maureen ‘Moe? Helmuth fan club.
‘Moe is Oxford,? said Dave Weckle, lifelong Oxford resident and local developer. ‘Eliminating her position is one thing, but don’t eliminate Moe.?
‘I wouldn’t be in business today if it hadn’t been for Maureen,? said Victoria Connolly, owner of Victoria’s Delights, a bistro located downtown.
Sixteen people stood before the council to praise Helmuth ? who’s worked for the village in various positions for about 20 years ? criticize village officials and ask questions about why the village treasurer since July 2007 was given the axe.
‘I’m telling you what you’re doing is crappy,? said Kathie Kerr, Helmuth’s sister who lives in Commerce Township. ‘I’m disgusted with how you’re treating her. You should be ashamed of yourselves.?
At the Aug. 12 village meeting, council voted 3-2 to consolidate the clerk and treasurer positions as a cost-saving measure. The savings will be placed in the water fund to help pay for the new $2.45 million water treatment plant the municipality is planning to build and offset possible water rate increases.
‘I know this councilperson is not in favor of raising taxes or raising water rates any more than absolutely necessary,? said village President Chris Bishop.
Council’s decision to consolidate led to the elimination of the treasurer’s position and Helmuth as of Sept. 19.
The treasurer’s position cost the village $39,865 per year in wages plus another $25,634 in fringe benefits.
‘A 3-2 vote to lose an asset like (Helmuth) is a big mistake,? said village resident Jim Campbell. ‘And I really hope you would reconsider.?
‘This (decision) didn’t come lightly for this council,? Bishop explained. ‘It came after much agonizing thought.?
‘That is not something that is new to this village for those two positions to be combined,? Bishop noted.
Former village employee Christine Burns held the positions of clerk, treasurer and assistant manager from August 2005 to May 2007.
Numerous audience members stated their belief that the village’s actions were part of some personal vendetta against Helmuth.
‘It was cold. It was callous and I do think it was calculated,? said former village councilman Matt Weber. ‘And I think it was personal.?
Village resident Dave Gerber also wondered if the village’s decision was personal based on an excerpt of the June 10 council meeting minutes he read on-line.
The minutes referred to Bishop’s comments regarding Helmuth’s performance review and how her ‘resistance to work with the village clerk (Dan Luick)? should ‘not be tolerated? and ‘this is obstructing the ability of the clerk to report to the council.?
‘If I look at this, it could be taken as personal,? Gerber said. ‘I’m not saying it is, I’m saying it has the appearance that it’s a personal thing.?
‘There’s something happening within this village that just doesn’t set well with me,? said former village President Steve Allen. ‘If you want to take something down or make it weak, you kick it’s legs out from underneath it. I see Mo go. I have this sneaking suspicion that Joe’s next. And I have a sneaking suspicion that after Joe goes, it’s the police chief. Please prove me wrong on this. We’re going to try to keep a sound village here. I just don’t like the way this is looking to me.?
Bishop assured people the decision was nothing personal against Helmuth and was ‘purely a monetary decision.?
‘This council at no time named the individual to be laid off in our front office,? he said. ‘This council only consolidated a position and eliminated a budget for that position. That’s all this council did. It did not say Ms. Helmuth is to be laid off. We never said that. It was never part of our motion.?
‘Forget that,? said former village Councilman Peter Burke. ‘You’re eliminating a person, not a budget. That’s a more personal thing, I think.?
Longtime Oxford resident Helen Smith said she understands how budgets work and sometimes cuts need to be made, but, ‘I think there was a better way to do it than lose a loyal employee of 20 years.?
Many of audience members who spoke felt that Luick, who started here in November 2007, should have been the one laid off. Luick, who worked for the Village of Vernon for 14 years (nine of which as clerk), earns an annual salary of $43,501 plus fringe benefits totalling $17,948.
Because of her years of experience and assistant manager from August 2005 to May 2007.
Numerous audience members stated their belief that the village’s actions were part of some personal vendetta against Helmuth.
‘It was cold. It was callous and I do think it was calculated,? said former village councilman Matt Weber. ‘And I think it was personal.?
Village resident Dave Gerber also wondered if the village’s decision was personal based on an excerpt from the June 10 council meeting minutes he read on-line.
The minutes referred to Bishop’s comments regarding Helmuth’s performance review and how her ‘resistance to work with the village clerk (Dan Luick)? should ‘not be tolerated? and ‘this is obstructing the ability of the clerk to report to the council.?
‘If I look at this, it could be taken as personal,? Gerber said. ‘I’m not saying it is, I’m saying it has the appearance that it’s a personal thing.?
‘There’s something happening within this village that just doesn’t set well with me,? said former village President Steve Allen. ‘If you want to take something down or make it weak, you kick its legs out from underneath it. I see Moe go. I have this sneaking suspicion that Joe’s next. And I have a sneaking suspicion that after Joe goes, it’s the police chief. Please prove me wrong on this. We’re going to try to keep a sound village here. I just don’t like the way this is looking to me.?
Bishop assured people the action was nothing personal against Helmuth and was ‘purely a monetary decision.?
‘This council at no time named the individual to be laid off in our front office,? he said. ‘This council only consolidated a position and eliminated a budget for that position. That’s all this council did. It did not say Ms. Helmuth is to be laid off. We never said that. It was never part of our motion.?
‘Forget that,? said former village Councilman Peter Burke. ‘You’re eliminating a person, not a budget. That’s a more personal thing, I think.?
Longtime Oxford resident Helen Smith said she understands how budgets work and sometimes cuts need to be made, but, ‘I think there was a better way to do it than lose a loyal employee of 20 years.?
Many of the audience members who spoke felt that Luick, who started here in November 2007, should have been the one laid off.
Luick, who worked for the Village of Vernon for 14 years (nine of which as clerk), currently earns an annual salary of $43,501 plus fringe benefits totalling $17,948.
Between wages and benefits, Luick actually earns $4,050 a year less than Helmuth.
Because of her years of experience, audience members felt Helmuth should have taken over as treasurer and clerk.
Many praised Helmuth’s extensive knowledge and helpfulness.
‘She’s always been helpful,? said village resident Gwen Stevenson. ‘She’s always had an answer. She always got back to me.?
‘Moe has been there for anything I’ve ever asked her to do,? Weckle said. ‘If I couldn’t find an answer, Moe could. If she couldn’t find an answer, she knew where to go.?
Connolly explained how when she started looking into how to open her restaurant in downtown Oxford, nobody, except for Helmuth, would answer her questions or even talk to her.
‘Maureen held my hand through the entire process,? Connolly said. ‘Maureen lined up all my inspections, told me who to contact, what to do.?
Weber noted that it doesn’t seem fair that a council of five people, who earn a combined $2,700 as elected officials, can lay off Helmuth, who earns nearly $40,000 a year plus benefits and has bills to pay and a family to support.
‘It’s kind of like the waterboy laying off Michael Jordan,? he said. ‘It doesn’t make sense to me.?
The only people who had any sympathy for the council’s point of view were Mark Young, chairman of the Downtown Development Authority, and former village president Sue Bossardet.
‘As much as I hate to see somebody lose a job that’s been here for quite a long time, I think if you want to move forward I think you’re doing the correct thing,? Young said.
‘Unfortunately in this climate that we’re in people lose jobs. And if you have to eliminate positions, that has to be done,? Bossardet said.
‘I’m not going to say that I like it or I dislike it, all I’m saying is that I understand where you’re at,? Bossardet noted. ‘And I applaud you on having to make hard decisions. If you have to make them, you have to make them.?