Questioning Muskegon Secretary of State Closings

by: Mary Valentine

Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 17:03:41 PM EST

In November of last year Secretary of State (SOS) Terri Lynn Land declared she was shutting down or consolidating 11 Secretary of State offices. As part of that plan, she announced she would shut down the two Muskegon County offices which provide excellent coverage to the citizens of Muskegon County, in favor of one office located in the southernmost part of our county on Sternberg road. She has since rescinded this plan and reopened the bidding process. This placement would have left a huge gaping hole in coverage for the central part of our county.

Without any public input from the citizens of Muskegon County, public officials, people working at the Muskegon SOS offices, or the owners of the buildings, she announced her "modernization" plan in the press. The lack of transparency used in developing this plan has led to a great many questions about the procedure used to make this decision.

Why were 10 of the 11 consolidations picked in Democratic State House districts? Why during the hard recession are we making it more expensive for citizens to do business with the SOS? What process was used to determine which offices to close? Was it politically motivated? Why did the boundaries from the bid process even include the Sternberg location in the first place? What are the true costs and savings of the Muskegon closings? Was this a strategy to make it harder for poorer voters to register to vote? To get answers to these questions and others I sent Secretary Land specific questions concerning her proposed plan for Muskegon.

The Auditor General recommended a written process for branch closures be developed, which does not seem to have happened. As a result I have begun working on legislation calling for a moratorium on additional branch closings until there is a written process in place, which includes proof of financial savings, close proximity to public transportation, transparent, itemized list of moving expenses, and evidence local residents have been included in the decision making process.

The whole process has generated a great deal of outrage in Muskegon. As such, I took the lead, with the help of Representative Bennett’s office, to get to the bottom of this issue. First I gathered information from the key players involved, then I requested with my colleagues that an investigative hearing be instituted to get straight answers to the many question involved, and reached out to the Secretary of State’s office. Due to the our quick action, Muskegon's case was the first to receive a hearing.

On December 16 the Appropriations Subcommittee on Investigations, Intergovernmental Affairs and Oversight Committee held a hearing on the Secretary of State closures in the State. Several people came down from Muskegon to testify.

Greg Wilkinson, the owner of the SOS building on Apple Ave., testified that he could not get in touch with anyone from the Secretary of State's office to determine what they were looking for in a bid. So he put in five offers and heard nothing from the Secretary of State's office about any of them.

Whitehall's office owner Del Underwood was charged $6,000 in realtor fees in order to make a bid. Both owners are willing to negotiate to offer a better price, but neither was given that opportunity.

On January 25th I held a Town Hall meeting to discuss SOS closures (see http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2010/01/residents_make_case_for_saving.html). Although invited, neither Secretary of State Land nor a surrogate attended.

Secretary Land has used the State’s budget crisis to continue with a Branch Office Modernization Program “to proactively manage existing resources to provide the best service possible.” At first glance, it seems that the SOS is doing her job in these tough economic budget times. Looking closer, though, there does not appear to be a cost savings, but rather a hidden tax and a great deal of inconvenience to the people of Muskegon County.

An analysis of the seven communities in the area show that additional driving expenses will add a hidden tax of $424,519 to the people of these communities.

According to SOS the cost of moving the Muskegon County Plus office is approximately $14,000 for moving company, signage, electrical, voice and data line expenses. This seem very inexpensive to move two offices into one or was recently stated at a town hall meeting “this would hardly pay for Two Men and Truck," according to a statement at the recent Town Hall meeting.

A Performance Audit by the Auditor General's Office was conducted in 2004 concerning "Driver Licensing and Vehicle Registration Processes" concerning the Secretary of State and the Bureau of Branch Office Services (BBOS).

The auditor general report states that the previous handling of the SOS office closures was flawed and clearly had strong recommendations for improving the process. In our research into this matter it looks as if the SOS ignored the advice given, which is why I am pursuing the above legislation.

If the Whitehall office closes, as the Secretary plans, the wait times for all surrounding branch offices, of course, will become longer. In conclusion, it appears that this is a decision on the part of the SOS that will cost the citizens of our area more in time and personal money than the proposed savings.

You can join our fight to keep the Whitehall branch office open by signing the on-line petition at http://www.PetitionOnline.com/stopsos/.. A hard copy petition is also being circulated.

In the meantime, we are pursuing several strategies. The first is to offer a legislative solution that would utilize Whitehall’s unique population circumstances to require the SOS to maintain an office in the Whitehall area. Further Investigative hearings are in the works, and Senator Gerald VanWoerkom has introduced legislation requiring two Branch offices in any county which has a population of 150,000 or greater.

I am doing all I can to tell the public about our concerns.