During the investigation into the alleged Open Meeting Act violations by our Township Board, Detective Sergeant Cole, from the Oakland County Sheriff’s office, interviewed Trustee Bailey, Trustee McKay, Supervisor Gonser and Treasurer Langlois. One of the alleged violations pertained to how the Board arrived at the 18 month duration for the concessionaire’s agreement at the Paint Creek Cider mill. Those interviews were documented in a case file that was then forwarded to the Prosecutor’s office for their consideration.
On the morning of April 15, 2013, Treasurer Langlois left a voice message on then Trustee Keyes’ answering machine informing her of the subcommittee’s recommendation they would be making at that evening’s Board meeting regarding the concessionaire’s agreement. Treasurer Langlois’ voice message not only is inconsistent with what she and Trustee Bailey told the investigator as part of their official testimony, but also reveals the motive for why they wanted an 18 month duration on the agreement – to enable their preferred concessionaire candidate to take over the facility in the future.
Here is a copy of Trustee Bailey’s April 18th email that indicated a decision had been made by a quorum of the Board outside an open meeting.
Here is a statement Trustee Bailey made to Detective Sergeant Cole on October 11, 2013 as recorded in the case file:
- Bailey stated he misspoke in his email when he said it was the belief of the subcommittee (along with Supervisor Gonser) to change the contract from 24 to 18 months. Bailey intended to say it was only his desire to alter the contract duration.
Here are statements Supervisor Gonser made to Detective Sergeant Cole on October 4, 2013 as recorded in the case file:
- Gonser said the Board realized they did not want the contract to end in the high season so they took action to change it.
- Gonser said that the contract was going to be either 1 1/2 or 2 1/2 years in length, and the Board opted for the former because they could cancel it at any time. Gonser said the subcommittee had nothing to do with the end date of the contract and if they did, he was not aware of it.
Note: Gonser’s above references to Board “actions” never took place in an open public forum.
Here are statements Treasurer Langlois made to Detective Sergeant Cole on October 17, 2013 as recorded in the case file:
- She (Langlois) said the term of the concessionaire’s contract was discussed in the subcommittee, however she said the subcommittee agreed that the length of the contract was outside the “purview” of the subcommittee.
- Langlois said that she was not in favor of changing the concessionaire’s contract from 24 to 18 months and the subcommittee agreed that this was not an issue the that the subcommittee should address.
- She stated the subcommittee never agreed to address the issue of duration of the contract.
- Langlois was asked if she was aware when she saw the email from Mike if she knew it was an Open Meeting Act violation and she said yes.
- Langlois said she called Mike and informed him that his email was not correct and to confront him with the fact that the subcommittee reached an agreement.
HOWEVER: On April 10, 2013 Treasurer Langlois sent an email to two other subcommittee Board members suggesting that they determine if the previous owner of the Cider Mill was still interested in pursuing his offer, since he would not immediately be able to use all the floor space he wanted. She also suggested that if a shutdown for a new concessionaire was to occur due to building modifications, “do we want to make sure that only happens in the winter months?”
The above statements are what the Board members told the investigator in their investigation. However, on the morning of April 15, 2013, the day the Board was going to take action on the concessionaire’s agreement, Treasurer Langlois left a message on Trustee Keyes’ answering machine. The following is a transcription of a portion of the message:
“We talked extensively over the weekend and met last night (April 14th) …..
We are going to conclude that based on the fact that the two timing issues of required shut down in the summer, which Jerry ( Jerry Mancour was one of the concessionaires who applied for the using the facility), as well as time for implementation which he (Jerry) would also need, which we can’t even address since we don’t have the community center space set up and running, and we don’t have final plans to get water in the millrace (which Jerry was going to use in his proposal). So based on that, Ed Granchi’s proposal scored higher than Jerry’s.
Our recommendation is going to be Mr. Granchi’s proposal be renewed in a similar fashion to the existing concessionaire’s agreement which is actually an 18 month lease (NOT TRUE) with various and differently worded options for renewal.”
As reported in Detective Sergeant Cole’s report, when Trustee Keyes (while still in office) and Trustee McKay forced our Township Attorney Dan Kelly to listen to the message in his office, our Township attorney’s response was:
“The phone message will not help the situation!” (The alleged OMA violation)
In subsequent conversations the author of this post had with John Slevin from the Prosecutor’s Office, John stated that the verbal testimony given by the Board members outweighed Mike Bailey’s April 18th, 2013 email where he stated that the subcommittee and Supervisor Gonser agreed to have the concessionaire’s agreement specify an 18 month duration. He stated that is why formal charges were not being issued to the Board members.
Here are copies of the entire case file:
Detective Sergeant Cole’s case file report on OMA investigation
Here is the entire audio recording of Treasurer Langlois’ message:
Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township? We expect our officials to be truthful. The discrepancies between what the Board members told the investigator and what Treasurer Langlois stated in her message to then Trustee Keyes indicate that our Board members are not meeting that ethical standard or adhering to the Open Meetings Act.
Treasurer Langlois’ message clearly documents how the Board uses their power to implement their objectives outside the public eye. Here are the Motive, Means and Methods that they used:
- Motive – Make it possible for the other potential concessionaire to takeover the Cider Mill space as soon as practical.
- Means – Concessionaire’s agreement duration
- Method – Change the duration of the agreement to 18 months so their preferred candidate could have access to the facility.
All of this accomplished while ‘covering their tracks’ by making inaccurate statements to the investigator!
Is this the type of honest and ‘transparent’ governance our Township residents expect? If not, please get involved in watching our Township leaders by either coming to meetings, watching cable Channel 17 or by continuing to monitor this site.
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY POSTED ON THIS SUBJECT READ:
Open Meeting Act violation regarding Paint Creek CIder Mill Concessionaire’s agreement
Another Potential OMA violation being investigated
Supervisor Gonser denies any wrongdoing
Lies, Lies and more Lies!
Mr Granchi’s APPROVED proposal accepted by the BOT in OPEN SESSION on Apri 15, 2013 was for 5 YEARS, NOT 24 months NOT 18 months.
The subcommittee and a Quorum of the Board had discussions that violate the Open Meetings Act, deliberated and decided to
reduce the term of the concessionere’s
Enough of the hocus-pocus!
Mr Michakski, I urge you to post Mr Granchi’s
proposal which was posted online by
OaklandTownship.org in March/April 2013
and which was the ONLY proposal contemplated per the Board of Trustees
meeting minutes held on April 15, 2013 and
PLEASE POST THE MOTION VERBATIM
together with the Granchi proposal.
The contract execution by the Township was
unlawful and not whithin the guise of State Law.
Again, I urge you to update this post accordingly.
Unbelievable…. I’m sure the Granchi’s will have a thing or two to say about this when their current contract expires. The whole process of selecting a concessionaire for OUR building was not on the up and up. If I was any of the business owners who submitted a proposal for this, I would feel cheated by a selection process that was obviously pre determined. One more blow against the “free” enterprise system. Crooked politics wins out on the local level just as in the federal level.