CALUMET — A four-member group of residents has made its suspicions of malfeasance by village officials and government entities known by requesting answers from the Village Council, the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) and a non-profit promotional organization called Main Street Calumet (MSC). The conflict revolves around a one-year contract between the DDA and MSC for services MSC was to provide for the “purpose of the village of Calumet DDA to promote economic growth in Calumet.”

The issues arise from two articles in the contract: the term of the agreement, which is from Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 2020, and the payment for services. The contract states:

“The DDA will MSC $20,000 for the contract term. Payment for MSC’s services shall be paid no later than January 31, 2020, and the remaining half by June, 30th, 2020.”

The agreement was approved by the DDA at its Dec.10, 2019, regular meeting, and was signed on Dec. 12, by Leah Polzien, executive director of MSC, and by then-Village President David Geisler, who signed the agreement on behalf of the DDA. Because the contract did not involve the Village Council, it was not approved by the council, Village Manager Caleb Katz explained.

The language recorded in the minutes of the December DDA meeting states:

“The agreement would provide for the payment of $10,000 annually to MSC to provide services as listed in the agreement.”

The same minutes state that for the agreement discussion, Polzien excused herself from it and left the meeting. However the minutes also reflect that while she was absent from the discussion, Polzien voted yes on the motion to accept the agreement, which has aroused suspicion of conflict of interest on the part of Polzien.

Polzien in a statement replied, saying that she has never voted on any contract that benefitted MSC, was not present during voting on that contract, nor has she negotiated on behalf of the DDA Board on or for a contract.

The term of the agreement, which states it is of a one-year duration, depends on fiscal years, which is supported in the documents, said Katz.

“The difference of what people are saying,” he said, “is that from Jan.1 to Dec. 31 counts as two fiscal years –for the village.”

The last day of the village government’s fiscal year, he said, is Feb. 28. The new fiscal year, then, begins on March 1.

“So, that’s why there are two payments of $10,000,” Katz said, “One in Fiscal Year X and then one in Fiscal Year 2X.”

At the same time, the fiscal year of the DDA is from Jan.1 to Dec. 31. So, as Katz explained, while the contract was a year’s duration by the fiscal year of the DDA, it spanned two of the village’s fiscal years. That is why the DDA agreement states it would provide for a $10,000 payment annually.

“So that’s why the contract states it will be paid in January and again in June,” Katz said, adding that t he DDA is currently working to re-align its fiscal year.