Category Archives: Board vs. Parks

PRC Commissioner Rogers accuses a “cabal” of Open Meeting Act violations

5 Replies

Early in December Parks Commissioner Anne Marie Rogers forced Parks Director Mindy Milos-Dale to allow her to log on to the Director’s computer and read and copy her emails..

At the Dec. 11 2013 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting Commissioner Rogers  accused Commission members Mackley, Peruzzi, Tomboulian and Barkham of being a “cabal of four people who work in secret to develop policies”.    She also claimed that Parks and Recreation Director Mindy Milos-Dale illegally directs this quorum. In her 6 minute presentation (see below) she alleged that the following examples of the Directors  emails indicated Open Meeting Act Violations:

  1. “in one instance Ms. Milos Dale asks the four offending Commissioners which of them will be attending a Planning Commission meeting”
  2. “in another they discuss parks rezoning”
  3. “in another they are prepping for a BOT meeting”
  4. “in another the cider mill vendor is discussed”
  5. “it appears these members script for one another ideas and statements to be made at PRC meetings as well as Board of Trustee meetings and Planning Commission meetings”

Webster’s defines “cabal” as “a small group of secret plotters, as against a government or person in authority.”

The Open Meetings Act requires that:

  1.  All decisions of a public body shall be made at a meeting open to the public.
  2. All deliberations of a public body constituting a quorum of its members shall take place at a meeting open to the public except as provided in this section and sections 7 and 8. (note: Sections 7 & 8 do not apply to the PRC.)
  3. Also, The act defines a decision as a determination, action or disposition… on which a vote by members of a public body is required and by which a public body effectuates or formulates public policy.

Let’s take a layman’s look at each of Rogers’ accusations with the OMA language in mind:

  1. The OMA does not forbid the planning of attendance at meetings.  It is  a good idea for the Director to help the Commissioners avoid having a quorum at a meeting of another body where PRC matters would be discussed.
  2. The PRC had decided that it wanted the 7 park properties rezoned and had applied to the Board of Trustees for a decision.  The PRC was working through the process of obtaining an approval.  There was nothing to deliberate or decide except how to get it done by making appeals and presentations to the Board.  There was no formulation of public policy.
  3. The PRC’s business before the Board of Trustees was about three topics: 1. the rezoning (see above); 2. the site plan for the Orion Rd. Parking Lot; 3. the Supervisor’s spending of Parks funds without authorization.  in each of these The Parks Commission was participating in Board of Trustees deliberations.  They were not deliberating or deciding Parks business.  No vote by the PRC was required for them to discuss these with the Board.
  4. The PRC is a tenant in the Paint Creek Cider Mill building and are subject to the decisions made by their landlord, the Board of Trustees.  The PRC has no authority over any of the other tenants in the building.  Any communication about other tenants could not be deliberations or decisions regarding Parks business.  No vote by the PRC was required.
  5. As discussed above the PRC members’ preparations for presentations and statements at meetings of other public bodies is not deliberation about or decision making of PRC business.

In my layman’s opinion each of these five accusations of Open Meetings Act Violations is false.

If, after a day of searching the Park Director’s emails, this is all she has to offer I think her use of the pejoratives “cabal”, “illegal”, “inappropriately”, “secret”, “unethically”, “devious”, “poisonous”, “unscrupulous” is unwarranted.  It is Commissioner Rogers statements that are inappropriate,  devious, and poisonous.

Jim Foulkrod

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 accuses creators of this website of ‘cowardice’ while he refuses to admit HE made unauthorized request!

2 Replies

At the August 13th Board of Oakland Township meeting, several citizen made comments about this website.  Supervisor Gonser responded by saying that the creators of this website were cowards and should appear at the meetings ‘in person’.

One of the creators of the website WAS present for the beginning of the meeting.  He was not present when the Supervisor made his comments.

The author of this post was on vacation, and watched the entire meeting using the Township’s website.  For the record, and to the dismay of Supervisor Gonser, I have made many comments at Board meetings, challenging the Board on many issues.  He has cut me off at the 3 minute limit, while he has allowed others that share his views to continue for much longer.

So WE are cowards because we document the FACTS on Board issues and share them with citizens who do not have the time to watch all the meetings and “CONNECT THE DOTS” themselves?

Please watch the attached video from the August 13th meeting, where Trustee Keyes asked who authorized work for a parking lot on a park parcel, since the Parks and Recreation Commission had not made that request.  Supervisor Gonser sat silent for 20 seconds.  At the September 10th Board meeting, Superintendent Creech indicated that Supervisor Gonser did authorize that work.  Yet Supervisor Gonser sat silent for 20 seconds at the August meeting only to state at the end of the silence:

“We are probably not going to solve this in front of the the Television cameras tonight!“

Supervisor Gonser did not speak up when he knew he authorized the work on the Park parcel!

He made accusations of cowardice when two of the creators of this website were not present!

SO WHO IS REALLY THE COWARD?

Someone once told me “If the truth hurts, it is because you do not like what it says!”  I will let the readers decide who is truthful and who is a coward.

If you are a concerned citizen of Oakland Township, I would encourage you to come to several of the Board of Oakland Township Meetings, and voice your opinion on matters.  The current Board has a small group of citizens that always participate supporting the Board’s point of view.  Diverse opinions are needed to protect Oakland Township’s future from being defined by this small group.

Richard Michalski

Here are the videos confirming the above statements.

Abuse of Power and a Misappropriation of funds?

1 Reply

At the August 13, 2013 Oakland Township Board meeting, Trustee Keyes asked who authorized the expenditures for the Marshview Connector Parking lot work.  She discovered that neither the Parks Commission nor the Trails and Safety Paths Committee asked for, or authorized, the clearing of brush and preliminary design work on this project.  However, someone had requested the work and directed that the cost for the work be shared between the Parks and Recreation Budget, the Trails and Safety Path Budget, and the General Fund.  

There are TWO issues with this situation:

  1. The first represents a potential abuse of power by either Supervisor Gonser or the Township’s administrative staff.  
  2. The second is a potential misappropriation of funds by the Township Board. 

The Parks and Recreation Budget is the responsibility of the Parks Commission.  The Township Board does approve the Park’s Commission budget, but it does not have authority to authorize work on Parkland, or spend money against the Parks Budget without the Parks and Recreation Commission’s approval.  

The questions raised by Trustee Keyes at the August 13 meeting went unanswered at that meeting, as well as the September 10th Board meeting until aggressive questioning resulted in Superintendent Creech stating that Supervisor Gonser approved both the clearing of the land and the allocation of expense to the Park’s Commission’s Budget.   The Board then proceeded to not only approved the questioned bills from the August meeting, but added several other bills pertaining to the same project by a 6 to 1 vote (Keyes voting nay).

At the September 11th Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, the Commission agreed to pay for some of the expenses that were incurred on this project, but not the previous bills.

Many citizens indicated they do not understand the importance, or the significance, of this situation.  One citizen has stated that the Park’s Commission has “overplayed’ this issue.  However, the autocratic decisions made by Supervisor Gonser, or the Township administration at his request, represent an abuse of power, given that the Parks and Recreation Commission has autonomous authority.  The unauthorized allocation of costs for the unauthorized work to the Parks Commission Budget appear to be a misappropriation of funds.

Here is the background on this issue:

  • At the March 18th Oakland Township Board meeting, when the Parks Commission’s budget was being discussed, Supervisor Gonser indicated that he wanted the Parks Budget to be modified to include the addition of a parking lot at the Marshview Connector Park. He went on to say:

“I would like to see this accomplished this summer, so people are seeing progress.” (at 2:36:00 in the audio recording of the meeting)

  • Supervisor Gonser also stated, while reviewing the Parks Commission Budget:

“We are setting the Budget!” (at 2:29:05 in the audio recording of the meeting)

  • The Parking lot project is not in the Parks and Recreation Commission’s 2010-2014 Master Plan.
  • At the April 10 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, during citizen comments, Trustee Thalmann introduced the request for adding a Parking lot on the Marshview Connector Park located on Orion Road, just South of E. Clarkston Road. She stated that Supervisor Gonser had a keen interest in this project.
  • At that meeting, a subcommittee was set up to participate with Trails and Safety Path Committee and Township Board members to review the request.
  • On May 13th the representatives from the Parks Commission,  Trails and Safety Paths Committee, and the Board met at the site to discuss the potential options for the site.
  • On May 20, an Engineering firm, that was getting direction from someone other than the Parks Commission, submitted a Proposal for the Marshview Connector Park to Mr. Creech, the Township Superintendent.
  • On May 22 the Engineering firm was asked by Mr. Creech to prepare a presentation for that evening’s Parks Commission meeting.  It was not on the agenda for that evening’s meeting.
  • At the Parks Commission meeting that evening, the Engineering firm apologized for the low level of information provided because of the late request for the presentation.
  • The Parks Commission was informed that Supervisor Gonser wanted the project to be completed this building season, and desired that the Parks Commission approve a Special Land Use request to the Planning Commission.
  • In a spirit of cooperation with the Township Board, the Parks Commission recommended that the Township Board approve a Special Land Use request, even though they did not have any significant information on the proposal and were not directing the project.
  • On June 4th, the Planning Commission accepted the Special land use plan for study.
  • On July 2nd, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the plan. There were a number of issues raised including slope and grade issues with the proposed pathway, as well as the overall location of the path and the parking lot on the parcel.
  • At that meeting, Treasurer Langlois said:

“The Township Board did not have the authority to instruct the Parks and Recreation Commission to undertake this project.”

  • At that meeting, concerns over the funding for the project were discussed, but it was determined that those issues were outside the Planning Commission’s responsibilities.
  • This topic was placed on the  August 7th Planning Commission agenda.
  • Prior to the August 7th meeting, but after the agenda was published, Parks Commissioner Chair Mackley requested that this topic be tabled since they had not requested it be placed on the agenda, and that they had not reviewed the information that was to be presented since they had only received it on August 2nd.
  • The Parks Commission did not have a meeting scheduled between August 2nd and August 7th to review the plan that had been developed.
  • After much discussion at the August 7th meeting, the Planning Commission tabled the topic.
  • At the August 13 Board meeting, Trustee Keyes identified expenses associated with the Proposed Parking lot project that were to be charged to the Parks and Recreation Budget, as well as the Trails and Safety Paths Millage Budget.  This work had not been requested or directed by either of those groups.  As a result, she asked who authorized the work.
  • When she asked who authorized the work, there was absolute silence from the Board members.
  • After 20 seconds of silence, Supervisor Gonser stated:

“We are probably not going to solve this in front of the the Television cameras tonight!”

  • At the September 10th Board meeting, Trustee Keyes indicated that she had not received ANY response to her request for information on who authorized the work and who authorized the appropriation of the expenses to the various accounts.  Clerk Reilly had not responded to her written request.
  • At the September 10th Board meeting, Superintendent Creech commented on who authorized the work and who authorized the allocation of expenses.
  • At the same meeting, the Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Commission as well as the Parks and Recreation Director commented on how this project has been handled.
  • At the September 11 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, the Commission agreed to pay for  $1,059.51 of the expenses incurred on this project, but not the previous bills that were under dispute.
  • Parks Commissioner Barkham indicated that there should not be any  further expenditures on this project without concurrence from the Board, the Parks and Recreation Commission, and the Trails and Safety Path Committee.

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township?  The division of responsibilities between the Township Board and the Parks and Recreation Commission are clearly defined. Having the Supervisor make decisions on park land for one of his “pet projects” exceeds the authority that the Supervisor or the Board have over the Parks and Recreation Commission.  The booking of the expenses for the work done at the Supervisor’s request against the Park’s Budget is a misappropriation of funds.

Do you think that Supervisor Gonser knew who authorized the site plan and the work that had been done on the site since the project was moving forward at his request?

Do you think Supervisor Gonser was silent for 20 seconds when asked who authorized the plan was because he was reluctant to admit that he authorized it with the video camera running?

Do you think Clerk Reilly should have responded to Trustee Keyes’ August 13th verbal request and her follow-up email requests?

Do you think Supervisor Gonser played a role in Clerk Reilly’s lack of response to Trustee Keyes request?

Is this the type of leadership you want in our Township?

Richard Michalski

First Time Defeat – Gonser loses Board vote on Parks.

Leave a reply

EDITORIAL – see straight news reporting of this event here

Please note that, on 9/22/13, I changed the names of those that voted Aye and Nay , after receiving information about the vote from Supervisor Gonser.  I think that the change is important because Clerk Reilly has never before opposed Supervisor Gonser so Trustee Thalmann is the only 100% supporter left.

The Board of Trustees handed Oakland Township Supervisor Gonser his first defeat with their Sept. 10th votes on rezoning parkland.  Having not lost any prior vote on anything, he lost on two motions in a row. This was not an inconsequential defeat, rather, its importance to Gonser has been shown in our previous reporting on his attempts to change the direction and challenge the authority of the elected Parks Commission.

Since this Board’s first meeting last November, virtually every vote was approved unanimously.  This began to unravel several months ago when Trustees Keyes and McKay began to challenge the Board on, among other things, the signing of the Board approved ethics pledge. Trustee Bailey would also occasionally make arguments contrary to Gonser’s direction.  This time Keyes and Bailey were joined by Clerk Reilly andTreasurer Langlois who argued that the voters gave the Parks Commission the authority  to manage parkland.  The Board did not have that authority.

This is an important development and maybe we will now begin to enjoy a more representative, responsive and pluralistic Board of Trustees.

The first Gonser defeat was a motion to allow first reading of the rezoning changes for only two of the seven parks for which the Parks and Recreation Commission had been pushing  zoning changes from Single Family Residential to Recreation-Conservation.  Supervisor Gonser made impassioned  arguments describing Oakland Township Parks as “appalling” and “unacceptable”.  Without a single mention of the township’s great history of land conservation, he decried the lack of ball fields.  Gonser did not acknowledge the fact that much of the land in question had been purchased with funds from the voter approved Land Preservation Millage which proscribes most development for active recreation.

The Supervisor made a proposal that no parkland can be zoned as Recreation-Conservation until there is a plan with a short time frame that would develop it for recreation, not allowing this additional protection to our preservation/conservation land.  

Gonser’s plea failed to gain sufficient support and the motion failed.  Trustee Bailey then moved to accept this first reading of the rezoning for all seven parcels.  Bailey, Keyes, Langlois and Reilly voted aye.  Gonser, McKay and Thalmann voted nay.  The Motion passed.

This topic will be re-visited at the October 8th board meeting when there will be a public hearing and, possibly, a final vote on the re-zoning.  If you support our Parks and Recreation department and Parks Commission please attend and speak up.

Jim Foulkrod

 

“Split decision” on Township Board’s approval of ‘first reading’ for Rezoning of 7 Park Parcels – Final vote coming up!

3 Replies

On September 10, the Oakland Township Board approved the ‘first reading’ for rezoning seven park parcels from Residential to Recreation/Conservation zoning.  The vote by the Board was 4 to 3.  Supervisor Gonser and two other Board members were opposed to the rezoning. The second reading and a public hearing for the rezoning will occur at the October 8th Board meeting.  

The difference of opinion among the Board members centered around the amount of “active” vs. “passive” use of park land, and the pace at which the park land is being developed into “active” usages by the Parks and Recreation Commission.  Treasurer Langlois pointed out that those decisions are  the “purview” of the Park and Recreation Commission and NOT the Township Board.

Supervisor Gonser’s reluctance to approve the rezoning appears to be an attempt to control the separately elected Parks and Recreation Commission.

Please attend the October 8th meeting to provide your input on the rezoning request.  

Over the past many years, the Parks and Recreation Commission has used funds from the Parks and Recreation Millage, the Land Preservation Millage and Grant Funds to secure property for parks and recreation use in our Township. Park land has also been obtained through land donations.  Historically, after acquiring  a number of parcels, the Parks Commission requested rezoning them from the original zoning to Recreation/Conservation (R/C) zoning in order to protect the land for that usage.

On April 2, 2013 the Planning Commission reviewed the rezoning request for seven Parks and Recreation Commission parcels and recommended that the Township Board approve the rezoning request.  The Township Board had their first discussion on the rezoning at the September 10, 2013 meeting.

Supervisor Gonser raised concerns over the lack of progress that the Parks and Recreation Commission has made in providing ‘active’ usages on our park lands.  He proposed that the Township not rezone the land until after the Parks and Recreation Commission develop a plan for each parcel.  He made those comments with little understanding of the history of the Parks and Recreation Commission’s past efforts and focus.

Parks and Recreation Director Mindy Milos-Dale shared the history behind the Parks and Recreation activities in our Township.

Supervisor Gonser commented that Lake Orion has many more active recreation facilities than Oakland Township.  Mindy Milos-Dale shared the historical reasons why there are differences between our communities, and also why Oakland Township focused on acquiring and preserving land rather than developing each parcel.

Trustee Bailey shared his support for the approach of the Parks and Recreation Commission.

Treasurer Langlois pointed out that how the parkland is to be used is the purview of the Parks and Recreation Commission and NOT the Township Board.

Supervisor Gonser appears to want to control or dictate the actions of the Parks and Recreation Commission as evidenced by his comments on how Lake Orion administers parks.

The motion to approve the first reading, set the date for the second reading and set the date for the public hearing was made by Trustee Bailey.  The motion passed by a vote of 4 to 3, Supervisor Gonser being one of the negative votes.

Why is this important to Oakland Township Residents?  The rezoning of the land that has been procured by the Parks and Recreation Commission has always occurred without controversy.  Rezoning the land to Recreation/Conservation will ensure that that land will be used for Parks and Recreation purposes.  The Board and Parks and Recreation Commission should work together, but the responsibility for the development of park land is the responsibility of the Parks and Recreation Commission, NOT the Board as Trustee Langlois clearly stated.

Do you want to ensure that the land purchased by the Parks and Recreation Commission be preserved for that use through the rezoning?

Do you agree that the Township Board should have input, but not control or dictate the projects that the separately elected Parks Commission chooses to work on?

Please come to the October 8th, 2013 Township Board meeting to share your thoughts on this very important Township issue!

Richard Michalski