Providing The Latest News With Opinions

Why Voters Must Fire Michael Painter from Ironhouse

My motto is simple, vote out all the incumbents from Ironhouse Sanitary District and you see an immediate savings in benefits. Voters can un-elect Michael Painter and reject Tom Williams’s appointment of David Contreras tomorrow and begin putting directors on a much lower benefits tier which will reduce the districts burden on the ratepayers.

If re-elected, Michael Painter and David Contreras are eligible to receive benefits of up to $1,588 per month because the Board was more interested din protecting their own benefits and doing the right thing on behalf of ratepayers. They proceeded to make the change for new Directors who are on a tier that limits their benefits to around $625-650 a month. You see, by voting out incumbents, you are saving at least $1,000 per month per director.

Simply put. stipend and benefits reform are needed at Ironhouse because these benefits are excessive for part-time position . For example, between 2007 to 2011, Doug Hardcastle racked up $94,888.60 in stipends and benefits. Michael Painter received $124,815. Both men now receive lifetime medical.  These excessive benefits need to stop.

With that said, there is many other reasons why Michael Painter should be rejected and given his pink slip by voters.

Annual Operations Budget has increased

In a down economy, Ironhouse Sanitary District has not been fiscally responsible, they have actually increased their burden on ratepayers by increasing their operational budget.  The annual budget jumped from $7 million in 2010 to $12.3 million for fiscal year 2012-2013. While Painter can claim he is saving ratepayers money, the truth is he isn’t saving anything. He has helped spend millions more in a bad economy without implementing furloughs, layoffs, or other cost saving measures.  Instead of cost saving measures, Ironhouse gave pay increases to its employees. To put this in perspective, the City of Oakley has implemented 20+ furlough days to reduce the burden on the taxpayer.

 Annual Rate Increases since 1999

Michael Painter has on his campaign signs he is for lower rates which is a flat out lie and I hope voters are not fooled. During his 12 years on the Board, rates have increased by 250% while going up each and every year.

In 1999, rates were just $249. Today, we are paying $618.  So much for lowering rates!  They have gone up every year and will likely continue to increase due to the leadership failing to make the difficult decisions to reduce the burden on the ratepayer.

According to Mr. Painters 2000 SmartVoter page, he ran on a priority to lower fees which he’s done the opposite.  In fact, since 2000, he’s failed on all three of his priorities.

Stipend Abuse

In reviewing his Time Sheet since 2001, Painter should repay $23,800 to the District.  Just to name a few, Painter has charged ratepayers to attend grand openings, teleconference calls, set-up/take town of Almond Festival, attending creek cleanups, attending non-profit meetings, and newsletters. He is also going around claiming he helps with the Delta Science Center, but he does not tell people he is paid to do that—39 meetings at $6,630.

What Painter has managed to claim over the years is disrespectful to ratepayers. Shame on management for approving the stipends which they are partly to blame.  Due to Painters actions, reform and an audit are needed to review director stipends and further define what should and should not be claimed. Here is his Time Sheet.

Final Thoughts

If voters want productive change, they should vote for myself (Michael Burkholder) and Aaron Meadows.  For the third vote, you are picking between a personal relationship in David Contreras with Tom Williams or Doug Scheer who has ran the Chamber into the ground. Neither are ideal as its like flipping a coin.

Either way the votes come out tomorrow, anyone but Painter at this point would be an upgrade given his history of ripping off the ratepayers while collecting a nice chunk of change.


Tagged as: , , , , ,

9 Responses »

  1. This is a nice recap of what you have been preaching for months. My hope is it resonates with voters. I will applaud you for sticking with the facts and issues. I know many wish you would have brought up Painters personal struggles which are major character flaws for an elected position, but you stuck to the issues. I give you major respect for not going there when it would have been very easy to do.

    I personally will vote for Aaron Meadows,Doug Scheer and you to get new blood and a lower burden on my bill.

    • I think if Burk or anyone knows something about Painters charactor, they should share it for the sake of the voters. I guess people in politics really do have morals. Given this overview, Burk is the man! You should take this same approach and apply it to other abuses in local government.

    • It would be very easy to put out Painters extracurricular activities, but I’ll pass and stick to the issues.

  2. Very good case to fire Mr. Painter.

  3. Mr. Burkholder, as someone of color, I appreciate both of your responses to such a sensitive topic to many. Mr. Payton has shown his ignorance to the topic. You approached the issue was director and left no room for games or running around in circles. People like you who dissect what is said are needed so we can discuss it and move forward in a positive and productive way. The committee says it chose the best candidates off ideas, not color of their skin, so that should be the end of it. We have to go off what they say and while some may not like that answer, Mr. Payton is simply making assumptions based off email conversations. He wasn’t there in the interview so he has no room to talk.

    Please keep up the good work and I appreciate the fact you called him out on his BS!

  4. Burkholder is a Loooser and needs stop his slanted hits on people to get attention. You lost Loooser pack up and get a job at a fast food place where they will accept your line of bs.

    • Slanted, I had posted all the documents to back up his track record. Nice try. Your childish attacks prove just how shallow of a person you really are. I have no problem working at a fast food restaurant if I had to. What are you trying to say about fast food workers? Are thy beneath you. I believe you should look in the mirror before you attack a whole lot of hard working people who likely serve you food at one point or another in a month. Grow up!

      • Very polite response Burkholder considering the malcontent this MF person is. He won’t even use his real name which is why he should be ignored. Kudos to you for not attacking back and kudos for sticking up to fast food people.

    • @MF, you seem to be the “odd man out”. You must be comfortable in that role by now.

      Too bad you have to use stupidity to get attention, but hey, whatever works for you right?

      Oh wait, that isn’t working. Just stick with your small minded angry posts at least those are mildly entertaining.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: