Monthly Archives: October 2013

Joan Buser – “KEEP MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT”

3 Replies

As Supervisor Joan Buser, I served Oakland Township for 17 years.  I strongly advise you to keep the manager form of government for the following reasons:

  • During my tenure I met with many supervisors in Oakland County.  Very few were qualified for their position.  The results can be seen most dramatically in the zoning ordinances and ordinance compliance.    When you drive through the townships that lacked good supervisors you can see what happened when a supervisor was inexperienced and there was no professional manager to help.
  • Once a development occurs that is not compliant with township ordinances you have that eyesore forever.
  • It is not only zoning that is a concern.  Oakland Township was considered for a prison site, a dump, and uncontrolled gravel mining.  These grave issues were successfully turned away.
  • Before running for office, I had worked thirteen years in various capacities for Oakland Township.  Holding a Master’s Degree in Public Administration, I did not need a manager, because I was, effectively, a professional manager and an elected Supervisor.
  • Very few citizens have such qualifications.  That is why a qualified manager is needed to make things run properly.
  • The Board sets the goals for the township, and the manager facilitates the implementation of these goals.

We need to replace Trustee Judy Keyes

2 Replies

The Township lost an excellent advocate for good government when Trustee Keyes resigned.  It will be difficult to replace her passion, courage and integrity but we need to try.  I urge anyone who is concerned about the future of Oakland Township to fill out the simple application that I have linked below.

The commitment would be to serve until the general election in Nov. 2014.

I have applied even though my being selected is nearly impossible.  I am sure there are many people reading this who would be able to make a valuable contribution so please apply.  The application deadline is 4:30 PM this Friday, November 1st so mail your application early or drop it off at the Township Hall.

This is the notice from the Township web site:

Currently there is an open position on the Board of Trustees the Board is seeking to fill. This will be filled by appointment until the next general election. Interested candidates can submit their application to Karen Brennen, Deputy Clerk, by close of business on Friday, November 1st, 2013.

PLEASE NOTE THE NOVEMBER 1ST DEADLINE

BOARDS AND COMMISSION APPLICATION  – From the Township web site

Jim Foulkrod

Superintendent Jim Creech leaves. What’s Next?

11 Replies

Our Township Superintendent Jim Creech, a professional municipal manager who has been responsible for the day-to-day running of township operations for fifteen years signed a Separation Agreement ending his time with the township effective at the end of the Oct. 22nd Board meeting where it was announced.  The details of events leading up to that event are unclear and we will try to shed some light on them soon.  We have watched the relationship between Superintendent Creech and Supervisor Gonser get off to a rocky start and deteriorate from there.  We saw members of the Board of Trustees and Supervisor Gonser blame Superintendent Creech for virtually every misstep and embarrassment that has come their way.

Trustee Thalmann spoke up saying that the Superintendent’s duties now fall to Supervisor Gonser and maybe that is a good thing because he is elected and not an unelected bureaucrat.

She speaks of the elected Supervisor potentially sharing the duties “a. through o”.  The duties she refers to are specified in the State of Michigan Charter Township Act and are shown below.

42.10 Township superintendent; appointment; delegation of powers and duties of township supervisor.

Sec. 10. The township board in each charter township shall have power to appoint a township superintendent and may delegate to him any or all of the following functions and duties which functions and duties, unless so delegated, shall be exercised by the supervisor:

(a) To see that all laws and township ordinances are enforced;

(b) To manage and supervise all public improvements, works, and undertakings of the township;

(c) To have charge of the construction, repair, maintenance, lighting and cleaning of streets, sidewalks, bridges, pavements, sewers, and of all the public buildings or other property belonging to the township;

(d) To manage and supervise the operation of all township utilities;

(e) To be responsible for the preservation of property, tools, and appliances of the township;

(f) To see that all terms and conditions imposed in favor of the township or its inhabitants in any public utility franchise, or in any contract, are faithfully kept and performed;

(g) To attend all meetings of the township board, with the right to take part in discussions, but without the right to vote;

(h) To be a member, ex officio, of all committees of the township board;

(i) To prepare and administer the annual budget under policies formulated by the township board and keep the said board fully advised at all times as to the financial condition and needs of the township;

(j) To recommend to the township board for adoption such measures as he may deem necessary or expedient;

(k) To be responsible to the township board for the efficient administration of all departments of the township government;

(l) To act as the purchasing agent for the township or, under his responsibility, delegate such duties to some other officer or employee;

(m) To conduct all sales of personal property which the township board may authorize to be sold;

(n) To assume all the duties and responsibilities as personnel director of all township employees or delegate such duties to some other officer or employee;

(o) To perform such other duties as may be prescribed by this act or required of him by ordinance or by direction of the township board, or which are not assigned to some other official in conformity with the provisions of this act.

We, the citizens of the township, must carefully consider what this means.

Supervisor Gonser has spoken publicly about “working fifty to sixty hours a week” in just his duties as township supervisor.  He has made mistakes that have caused the township to be facing three legal actions in less than a year:

  • The Federal HUD investigation about allegations of housing discrimination.
  • A lawsuit alleging violations of the Freedom of Information Act and the Open Meetings Act.
  • A criminal investigation by the Oakland County Sheriffs Office into alleged violations of the Open Meetings act with regard to the leasing of space in the Paint Creek Cider Mill.
  • Also, upon her resignation Trustee Keys made many allegations of improper decision making, usurping of the powers of the Board of Trustees and personal intimidation.

Do we want him to be responsible for (a) To see that all laws and township ordinances are enforced;

The Township has lost three important and trusted employees for reasons that included conflict with Supervisor Gonser:

  • Building Director -Bill Benoit;
  • Recording Secretary – Ingred Kliffel;
  • Superintendent – Jim Creech.

Should Gonser be responsible for (n) To assume all the duties and responsibilities as personnel director of all township employees?

The Supervisor announced his “Good News” trail that would need to be constructed on a very steep, clearly unbuildable, bank of the Paint Creek.   He could not have even looked at the property before announcing that it would be built.

Should we hire him to be responsible for (b) To manage and supervise all public improvements, works, and undertakings of the township?

Please come to the meetings or watch them on the Township Website and let your voice be heard about whether this is the path our township should take.

Jim Foulkrod

Blossom Ridge – A Compromise is on the Table

2 Replies

At the 10/8/13 Board of Trustees Meeting Mr. Ed Kickham, Attorney for the Developer of the proposed Blossom Ridge senior living center presented the outlines of a compromise that has been presented to Supervisor Gonser.  The highlights of the proposal are:

  • The partial 3rd floor of the main building is removed causing a decrease in the units in the building;
  • The number of ranch and duet units on the grounds is increased;
  • The net total unit count is reduced to 228. Note: the plan approved by the Planning Commission had 282 units.

The negotiations are a response to the ongoing investigation by the Department of Housing and Urban Development into allegations of housing discrimination in Oakland Township.

UPDATE:  It has Been reported to me that the minutes for this Meeting do not even mention that Mr. Kickham’s presentation even occurred. The minutes say only that Supervisor Gonser updated the Board on the SAU.  This is not an innocent oversight. Why try to hide an attempt at compromise?

Jim Foulkrod

Sorry Maureen, readers of this site have lots of company – 12,000 views.

1 Reply

10/25/13:

To all our readers,

We are pleased that your interest in our posts about Oakland Township’s new government has, as of early this morning, attracted over 12,000 page views.

We have irritated members of our government with Supervisor Gonser calling us cowards and Trustee Thalmann complaining about “another baseless article in our local amateur Media Matters website”

We are not insulted by the comparison to an established professional website.  With the ongoing issues before the Township, and how the Board has handled past issues, we anticipate the number of views to continue to grow in the future.

Thank you all for taking your time to come here and read about what is really happening in our township.

Jim Foulkrod

TRUSTEE KEYES RESIGNS AT OCTOBER 22 OAKLAND TOWNSHIP BOARD MEETING

14 Replies

At the October 22 Oakland Township Board meeting, Trustee Keyes resigned her position as a Trustee of Oakland Township.  This came after months of significant differences between Trustee Keyes and Supervisor Gonser and  other members of the Board. 

Here are excerpts of the speech she gave when announcing her resignation:

“I have been threatened, intimidated, berated and demeaned on more than one occasion as a tactic to try to silence, control and force me into line and have been told, more than once, that I, as a Trustee am on a ‘need to know’ basis. These tactics have permeated my personal life and that of my family as well.

It is time for me to end my time as a servant to the community and return to the people’s podium where my hands can stay clean and where the ultimate authority and ability to hold the Board accountability lies. Ultimate authority does not lie behind these seven microphones.”

Here is a video of her total resignation speech:

Please read the following post to learn more about the most recent attack by Supervisor Gonser on Trustee Keyes.

https://oaklandtownship.info/2013/10/18/supervisor-gonser-attacks-trustee-keyes-for-doing-her-job/

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township?  If you have been watching what has been going on in our Township since the new Board was elected, you probably have concluded that Trustee Keyes is a very principled person and had the Township’s bests interests in all of her actions.  Losing a person of principle on the Board, for what appear to be ethical issues by other Board members, makes one wonder “Who will become the conscience and ethics guardian on the Board?”

Supervisor Gonser’s conflict of interest vote

3 Replies

As discussed on a previous post on this website, the Township Board agreed to pay for Supervisor Gonser’s personal legal fees for his unauthorized efforts to obtain an Attorney General opinion on the Blossom Ridge matter.  The results of the vote was 5 to 2.  Supervisor Gonser participated in the vote.  He was one of the 5 votes agreeing to have the Township pay that expense. 

At the October 22, 2013 meeting, the author of this post requested Supervisor Gonser explain to the citizens of Oakland Township why he felt it was appropriate for him to vote on an issue for which he personally benefitted.  He refused to disclose his reason in public.  He ended by saying:

“Fortunately, I do not answer to you!”

“This Board speaks through our motions”

“That order of business is done!”

The author’s question was raised on behalf of the citizens of Oakland Township.  He DOES answer to all of us!  His lack of action and comments reflect his arrogance and authoritarian style that has been documented in so many other issues on this website.  The Supervisor’s comments clearly implicate the entire Board in their complicity to this unethical behavior.

Here are the video elements from the October 22 meeting on this matter:

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township?  If an elected official votes on an issue that he/she personally benefits from, it is a conflict of interest.  Supervisor Gonser’s open denial to answer the question raises serious questions on his ethics and hidden motivations or “agendas” on other issues before the Board.  Once again, this action is  coming from someone who ran on a platform of transparency.

Richard Michalski

Township Board approves Supervisor Gonser’s “personal” legal fee

Leave a reply

As reported on other posts/ pages on this website, Supervisor Gonser had requested an opinion from the Attorney General on the Blossom Ridge Development.  The Board had originally authorized that request, but later rescinded it.  After being rescinded, Gonser continued to pursue getting an unauthorized opinion, first acting as the Supervisor and then “as an individual”.  

The Township attorney billed the Township for this service.  Trustee Keyes challenged the billing for this service.  At the October 8th Board meeting, Trustee Keyes explained why it was inappropriate for the Township to pay for Gonsers’ personal legal fee.  She made a motion to have him repay the Township.  The Board rejected her motion on a 5 to 2 vote.  

Trustee Keyes and McKay were the only ones who voted to have Gonser repay the Township.  Even though Supervisor Gonser personally benefited from the defeat of this motion, he voted on the motion.  He did not abstain as would have been appropriate.

On April 15th, the author of this post raised questions regarding Gonser’s authority to make the request.  Here is a copy of the ‘logic tree’ I used in my comments at that meeting:

Questions on authority for AG opinion

At that meeting, he stated, he sent the memo “as an individual”.  The copies of the two memos sent, as well as the billing from the Township Attorney, indicate that Gonser did not send the letter “as an individual” until 8 days after he claimed he had sent it.  He was clearly trying to ‘cover his tracks’.  

I have attached a file that is a ‘fact check’ comparing Gonser’s statement at the September 24th meeting, and previous Board meeting comments and other supporting documentation.  Here is the “fact check’ document:

Fact check for AG opinion

Yet with all this as background, the Board agreed to have the Township pay for his personal legal fee.   What could be the motivation for their approval since they had previously rescinded the authority?  Their approval clearly appears to violate their oath of office.

Why is this important to the Citizens of Oakland Township?  With all the facts presented by Trustee Keyes, there does not seem to be any justified reason for the Trustee’s approving the payment for Gonser’s legal fees. What hidden agenda’s were driving their decision?  Was there a decision made outside an open meeting authorizing Gonser to proceed with the Attorney General request?  Gonsers’ vote on the matter is clearly a conflict of interest, and violates his oath of office.

Richard MIchalski

Marshview Connector Parking Lot Subcommittee Meeting – Cooperative, Productive & Troubling

1 Reply

The Oct.16th meeting of the Marshview connector parking lot project subcommittee was cordial, cooperative and productive.  In attendance were:

  • Board of Trustees – Terry Gonser and Maureen Thalmann
  • Parks Commission  –  David Mackley, Joe Peruzzi, Andy Zale
  • Parks Department – Mindy Milos-Dale
  • Paint Creek Trail Commission – David Becker, Kritstin Meyers
  • Oakland Township Safety Paths and Trails Committee – none

The purpose of this subcommittee is to move forward on the plan for a parking lot on two parcels on Orion Road, adjacent to the Paint Creek Trail that are owned by Parks.  The subcommittee was formed because there has been a lot of controversy about this project due to:

  1. The project was launched independently by Supervisor Gonser;
  2. without Board of Trustees authorization;
  3. without Parks Commission authorization;
  4. the assumption that it would be funded with Trails Millage money;
  5. after objections raised at a Planning Commission meeting about funding it with our trails millage Gonser began splitting the expenses between general funds, parks funds and trails funds;
  6. Parks has objected to the use of their funds without their authorization.

After reviewing the first site plan that Gonser had ordered, the committee agreed that a new concept plan is needed that at least studies a number of things that weren’t considered by the current plan.  The committee authorized new work to reflect the feasibility of:

    1. Equestrian use, most importantly room for large horse trailers to park and turn around and maybe even hitching rails;
  1. Possible picnic tables;
  2. Possible playscape;
  3. Possible nature trail loop;
  4. Consideration of using the northern parcel for some or all of the project;
  5. A safer trail down to the Paint Creek Trail.

The bottom line is most of the work Gonser had authorized was a waste of time and money and needs to be re-done.  We did, at least, get a topographical survey of the southern parcel that will be useful.

Gonser then spoke to the meeting about an alternative plan sketched by an engineering firm who agreed to do it without payment.  He said that he couldn’t share the plan with the committee at this time because he had not paid for it. Gonser said this new plan could be done for $25k rather than the $100k that township’s engineering firm, PEA, had estimated.

  • Mindy replied saying she has done other parking lots of similar size where the gravel alone cost $20k so she thought Gonser’s firm should take another look at it.   Gonser said he could get the gravel for free. 
  • The Committee agreed that Supervisor Gonser could contact his unnamed firm and ask them to submit a formal proposal.

The point to be made here is that Supervisor Gonser, although he was amiable and agreeable, continued to attempt to dominate the process by getting ahead of everyone and going his own way.

Jim Foulkrod

Supervisor Gonser attacks Trustee Keyes for doing her job!

6 Replies

At the beginning of the October 8th Board of Oakland Township meeting, Supervisor Gonser spent seven and one half minutes attacking Trustee Keyes for doing her job.  He accused her of wasting the Board’s time by raising issues that he thought were “trivial to trite and insignificant”.  He refused to allow her to respond to his attack.  He told her she could respond at the end of the meeting.  Five hours later, when she was allowed to respond, after almost all of the residents present at the beginning of the meeting had left, he tried to limit her comments to 2 minutes.

Supervisor Gonser attacked Trustee Keyes for challenging the accuracy of two vote counts from previous meetings that were confirmed to be wrong. 

He attacked her for raising issues because  he is not following the outdated Township Bylaws.  Yet earlier this year, Trustee Keyes made a motion to perform a review of all Township policies and procedures.  That motion was not approved by the Board.  Her intent was to identify issues, and update the policies and procedures as needed.

He attacked her for challenging several bills in public, and wanted the Board to raise billing questions outside the Board meeting and the public eye.  Yet Trustee Keyes’ previous questions went unanswered by Supervisor Gonser and Clerk Reilly for a month,  only to find out that Supervisor Gonser had indeed inappropriately authorized the work that was in question.

In Supervisor Gonser’s closing comments during the attack, he stated:

“I hope and pray that future meetings will be conducted professionally without attacks and the bludgeoning of consultants, staff and residents in a public forum.”

Supervisor Gonser violated his own statement by his treatment of Trustee Keyes in the October 8th meeting!!

Here is a more detailed review of the events described above:

Supervisor Gonser stated that Trustee Keyes questioning the vote count for the first reading of the parks rezoning at the September 10 meeting was “much to do about nothing”.

  • Supervisor Gonser stated that the vote count was 4 to 3.  Trustee McKay confirmed at the October 10th meeting that she had voted in favor of the motion making the vote count 5 to 2.
  • Even though the outcome did not change, Trustee Keyes was correct, and Supervisor Gonser was wrong.  It is the Chair’s (Gonser’s) responsibility to make sure the recording secretary gets the proper vote count.
  • Proper vote counts are very important in our governmental processes.
  • Trustee Keyes was trying to correct the error.

Supervisor Gonser accused Trustee Keyes of “bludgeoning” the auditor and questioning the accuracy of the vote count for the approval for filing the audit at the September 24th meeting.

  • Trustee Keyes had made requests to accept the auditor’s offer to provide training to the Board on the audit process.
  • The auditor failed to respond to her written requests.
  • Clerk Reilly indicated that her staff was “too busy” to schedule the requested training session.
  • One of the reasons Supervisor Gonser voted against approving the audit for filing was that he was unfamiliar with the audit process. (training??)
  • Once again, the recorded vote count was wrong.  Supervisor Gonser announced in the meeting that the motion had passed, but did not state the count.  He asked the recording secretary “Did you get the votes?”
  • The following day, at Trustee Keyes request, the staff reviewed the video of the meeting, and determined that the motion had actually failed in a 3 to 3 tie vote, contrary to what Supervisor Gonser had announced at the meeting.
  • Once again, proper vote counts are important in our governmental processes.  Trustee Keyes was trying to fix an error.

Supervisor Gonser accused Trustee Keyes of raising bylaw procedural issues since the bylaws were outdated and not being followed.

  • Trustee Keyes recognized that the bylaws were not being followed.
  • That is why earlier this year, she requested an audit of all of the Township’s policies, practices and procedures.
  • The Board did not support her initiative.
  • Trustee Keyes offered copies of the bylaws to all of the Board members several months ago.  Only Trustee McKay accepted her offer.
  • Apparently, the Board members (with the exception of Trustees Keyes and McKay) have been operating for almost one year without having either a copy or an understanding of the Township bylaws.
  • By having outdated bylaws, Supervisor Gonser feels empowered to make unilateral decisions, as evidenced by his October 8th assertion that:

“Meeting protocol is established by the Chair!”

Supervisor Gonser accused Trustee Keyes of having a ‘gotcha’ mentality because of her desire for public viewing of the bills.

  • Fiduciary accuracy is a major responsibility of the Board.
  • Supervisor Gonser indicated that questions by Trustees on billings should be raised and resolved prior the meetings.
  • However, at the August 13th Board meeting, Trustee Keyes asked a question regarding several bills.
  • Supervisor Gonser, Treasurer Langlois, Clerk Reilly and Superintendant Creech sat silent for 20 seconds.
  • Trustee Keyes had followed up with e-mails to Clerk Reilly asking for an answer to her question.
  • Clerk Reilly did not respond to her e-mail.
  • Clerk Reilly then sent a letter to the Board, the day of the following month’s meeting, asking the Board to approach the staff if they have any questions on billings.
  • It was not until after questioning by Trustee Keyes, in that Board meeting, that her question from the previous month had been answered.
  • The answer to the question was that Supervisor Gonser and Clerk Reilly had approved the actions that Trustee Keyes had questioned the previous month.
  • The approvals that Supervisor Gonser and Clerk Reilly had made were not appropriate, since those approvals should have been made by the Parks and Recreation Commission (Marshview Connector Park parking lot).
  • In the October 8th meeting, Supervisor Gonser stated

“All questions on bills have been satisfactorily answered!”

  • It was not made clear for whom, besides Supervisor Gonser, had the questions been satisfactorily addressed.
  • Questions on the appropriateness of the Township paying for Supervisor Gonser’s legal advice for his personal request for an Attorney General opinion on the Blossom RIdge matter still existed when Gonser made this statement.

Why is this important to the Citizens of Oakland Township?  Having accurate vote counts is a fundamental necessity for a governmental body. Considering their accuracy as “trivial and trite”, is not something we should expect from our Supervisor.   Making sure our Township is governed by a set of established procedures is critical.  We cannot have them established by the “whims” of the Supervisor.   The outdated bylaws should be updated as Trustee Keyes attempted to do earlier this year. The Supervisor’s efforts to “cover up” his own deficiencies by attacking a Trustee for raising good questions is totally unacceptable.  Supervisor Gonser appears to be attacking those who point out his own leadership deficiencies.  This from a leader who ran on “transparency”.

Richard Michalski