Tag Archives: Abuse of Power

Summary of Supervisor Gonser’s actions while in office

The attached video is a summary of Supervisor Terry Gonser’s many egregious actions since taking office in 2012. The content shown in the video is being distributed to the residents of Oakland Township on a flier so they can make an informed decision when they vote on August 2nd. I trust many of you have already seen the flier.

This video is also being posted on the recently created Oakland Township Watchers Facebook Page.

Thanks to the many Oakland Township citizens that have helped make this distribution possible.

Richard Michalski

Supervisor Gonser violated Charter Township Act in 2014!

Statistics on growth of “Board/Manager” form of community governance

3 Replies

Supervisor Terry Gonser is proposing going back to the form of Township governance our community had prior to 1998, where his position would be a full time position. There are several 2016 Oakland Township Board candidates that support Terry Gonser’s re-election candidacy, and presumably support his desire to make this change.

Statistics published by the International City/Council Management Association (ICMA) indicate that many communities are moving toward the form of governance Oakland Township currently has, not away from it. Their data indicates the size of a community influences the form of governance the communities choose.

After several attempts, we have not been successful in obtaining written statements from Supervisor Gonser (although his past actions make his position clear) , or several other Board candidates, regarding their position on this issue. The citizens of Oakland Township deserve to understand each candidate’s position before they cast their ballots. Unfortunately the following have been reluctant to provide their positions.

We have not received responses from:

Terry Gonser – Supervisor Candidate
Judy Workings – Clerk Candidate
Jayson Corey – Trustee Candidate
Lana Mangiapane – Trustee Candidate
Robert Ricketts – Trustee Candidate who has withdrawn from race

The statements from the other candidates can be read by clicking:

SEE 2016 CANDIDATE OPINIONS

Here is more information on ICMA and the statistics they provided:

The ICMA is an organization that:

“identifies leading practices to address the needs of local governments and professionals serving communities globally. We provide services, research, publications, data and information, peer and results-oriented assistance, and training and professional development to thousands of city, town, and county leaders and other individuals and organizations throughout the world. The management decisions made by ICMA’s members affect millions of people living in thousands of communities, ranging in size from small towns to large metropolitan areas.”

Here is a quote from their website regarding the form of governance in communities (note: the ‘board-manager’ form of governance for a Township is similar to the ‘council-manager’ form for a village or city):

“Since it was first created a century ago, the council-manager form of government has become the most popular structure of local government in the United States. While many new municipalities have been incorporated with managers from their beginnings, many cities and counties across the country have made a deliberate change from strong-mayor to council-manager. Appointing a non-partisan professional manager with the authority to carry out the policies set by the elected body has advantages for many communities, and several have recently made the switch.”

The ICMA has provided data on how the preferred form of governance changes as a community increases in size. Here is a graph of that data:

(click on image to enlarge it)

As you can see, when a community is small in size, it tends to have a “Mayor-Council’ or “Supervisor-Board” form of governance. As it grows, and the complexity of managing the community increases, it tends to move toward a “Council-Manager” or “Board-Manager” form of governance, where a professionally trained manager handles the administrative issues of the community at the direction of the Board. Once a community gets above 250,000 residents, the “Mayor-Council” form of governance comes back into favor.

Oakland Township’s 2010 population was almost 17,000. With that population size, 53% of the 1,847 communities surveyed have a “Board-Manager” form of governance, similar to what Oakland Township currently possesses. The reasons for the increase in popularity of this form of governance are expressed by many of the the Oakland Township Board candidates that support retaining our current form of governance, SEE 2016 CANDIDATE OPINIONS, as well as the Kalamazoo Township Board that is moving to this form of governance, SEE KALAMAZOO BOARD DECISION.

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township? As previously stated, there are several 2016 candidates that support Supervisor Gonser. If they get elected, they may be successful in making his position a full time position. There are a few candidates (identified above) that have not provided their position on this critical issue. Please consider the information that is available when you vote.

Richard Michalski

Legal review underway to determine if Supervisor Gonser had authority to commit Township to significant financial liability without Board knowledge or approval

4 Replies

At the June 14, 2016 Oakland Township Board meeting, Treasurer Langlois disclosed that on September 3, 2014, Supervisor Gonser signed a safety path easement agreement with a property owner to transfer “all responsibility and liability for the safety path and boardwalk to the Township and its residents”. This agreement was done without any knowledge, or agreement, from the Township Board.

The agreement could result in hundreds of thousands of dollars of cost to the Township in repair and/or replacement of that badly deteriorated path. The property involved is on the Southwest corner of Adams and Silverbell Roads. The parcel is currently owned by a Moceri entity. It was purchased from the church on that corner approximately 90 days after the easement was signed. The easement document that the Supervisor signed indicates that it was prepared by an employee of a Moceri entity. (The ownership information was corrected after the initial post. The change in ownership was incorrectly stated as just the opposite of what is now correctly stated.)

Treasurer Langlois stated there is no evidence of a Board review, or a Legal review of this matter (the Township attorney did not appear to have any knowledge of the agreement). She also stated:

“I do not believe Supervisor Gonser had, or has, the authority to accept easements on behalf of the Township. Only the Board of Trustees has that authority. The document appears to show an overreach on the part of the Supervisor, and a complete improper action.”

Supervisor Gonser sat silent for almost 3 minutes while others spoke before he stated:

“Unfortunately I don’t remember why I signed it. I can only state that it certainly did not come in a vacuum. Someone had to present it to me and indicated it was appropriate to sign, but I don’t remember the specifics of it.”

He made no attempt at explaining why he did not bring it to the Board for approval, or even for information.

Trustee Ferriolo stated:

“No matter what was involved in the history and rationale for doing it, it should have been brought to the Board.”

The Township attorney has agreed to perform an investigation on this issue and will report out at the next meeting scheduled for June 28, 2016.

Here is a video of the June 14th discussion:

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township? We certainly must wait for the results of the Legal investigation to be complete before we draw any final conclusions, but Supervisor Gonser’s signature, and lack of willingness to inform the entire Board of his actions, is consistent with previous behavior.

This website has reported that Supervisor Gonser has repeatedly attempted to change the governance structure of Oakland Township to one where he would become a full time “Strong Supervisor”. He has taken several unilateral actions without Board approval. The Board has repeatedly responded by reaffirming Ordinance 97, which limits the Supervisor’s responsibilities, and maintains a professional Township manager who reports to the entire Board.

Here are some key points:

This easement agreement will certainly result in significant added costs to our Township.
It appears to have been made unilaterally without Board knowledge or agreement.
Under normal conditions, Gonser’s action could have resulted in a recall campaign being held.
Gonser is currently a candidate for election on August 2nd.
The Absentee ballots are going out on June 29th.
It is essential that the Legal review be completed by the June 28th Board meeting,
It is absolutely essential that we get adequate press coverage immediately after the June 28th meeting, so people can make an informed decision prior to sending in their absentee ballot.

My recommendation is that the Board be prepared to issue a press release on June 29th to the Oakland Press and the Rochester Post informing them of the outcome of the investigation. If there are acceptable reasons for Gonser’s signature, there may be no need for the press release. However, the press release may still be necessary since Gonser should have brought it to the Board for information.

The citizens need to have a clear understanding of this situation before they vote!

Richard Michalski

Oakland Township’s ‘Manager’ or ‘Superintendent’ form of governance is growing in popularity in State

2 Replies

As many of you are aware, Supervisor Gonser, and former Trustee Maureen Thalmann, made repeated attempts at changing Oakland Township’s structure from a “Manager” form of governance to a “Strong Supervisor” form of governance. He and Maureen wanted to change the Supervisor position to a full time position and eliminate the full time professional manager position. The Supervisor would assume all of the day to day operations in the Township with assistance from a part time support person.

At the April 12, 2016 BOT meeting, Clerk Karen Reilly reported that many Township’s in the state are moving away from the ‘Strong Supervisor” form of governance to what we currently have in Oakland Township.

Here is a video of Karen Reilly’s comments:

There have been many previous articles posted on this website regarding Supervisor Goner’s attempts at changing the structure of our Township. Many of them cover the reasons why our current ‘Manager’ structure is preferred, and why Supervisor Gonser’s actions are reasons why a “Strong Supervisor” form of governance is not in Oakland Township’s best interest. Other communities are apparently coming to the same conclusion.

Here are links to previous posts on this topic:

2013

2014

2015

The above articles make it clear why other communities are moving AWAY FROM their “Strong Supervisor” structures TO what Supervisor Gonser considers a “bizarre and unworkable” form of governance. Maybe the ‘bizarre and unworkable’ adjectives apply to Supervisor Gonser, as former Township manager Warren Brown suggested in his resignation statement noted above.

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township? Supervisor Gonser is planning on running for reelection this summer and fall. Although he did not disclose his desire to change how Oakland Township is structured prior to his election in 2012, his actions over the past few years make it clear what his intentions were and continue to be.

Between now and the primary elections this summer, there will certainly be discussions regarding the advantages and disadvantages of both forms of governance. I recommend you read some of the previous postings listed above to familiarize yourself with why we have our current ‘Manager’ form of governance.

It is very interesting that other communities are moving away from what Supervisor Gonser is proposing. Our current structure has helped create our outstanding community. It appears other communities are beginning to see the wisdom of our ways.

Please consider Terry Gonser’s position on this in the upcoming summer election.

Richard Michalski

Supervisor Gonser’s false allegations and inconsistent comments and examples of his ‘ethics’ while in office

3 Replies

At the September 22, 2015 BOT meeting, Supervisor Gonser made many allegations about former Manager Warren Brown. Trustee Ferriolo discovered that the Supervisor’s allegations were unsubstantiated. At the October 13, 2015 BOT meeting, Supervisor Gonser made a statement that was not consistent with what he had publicly stated at the September 22, 2015 BOT meeting.

At the September 22, 2015 BOT meeting, Supervisor Gonser made many accusations against our former Township Manager, Warren Brown. Mr. Brown was not present at the meeting to defend himself, since he had already resigned from the position.

Before making the many accusations against Mr. Brown, Supervisor Gonser stated:

“I wanted to express the disappointment I have in our former Township manager. The second week after he came, he asked the Supervisor if I would turn over all the projects I was working on to him, which I did, and that was the last time I spoke to him, or he spoke to me actually. The last time he . . . for a number of weeks.”

Gonser then proceeded to claim that the lack of progress on the projects he mentioned was due to the fact that we do not have a “strong Supervisor” form of governance in Oakland Township, a position both he and former Trustee Thalmann tried to change MANY times over the past 3 years.

Between September 22 and October 13, Trustee Ferriolo did some research to determine if Gonser’s accusations were true. After consulting with Township Staff, Ferriolo determined that Gonser’s accusations were not true. Trustee Ferriolo commented on his findings at the October 13 BOT meeting. He felt Gonser’s comments were “statements unbecoming a Township Supervisor”.

After Trustee Ferriolo made his comments, Supervisor Gonser attempted to defend himself. He said:

“Trustee Ferriolo was speaking somewhat beyond his knowledge. There WERE communications between the Supervisor and the former Manager regarding a lot of these project. They did not get done, so I am simply stating the facts. I stand by that! “

This statement contradicts what he said at the September 22 BOT meeting.

Did he, or did he not speak to Warren Brown about progress on the various projects? Both statements cannot be true!
Was Gonser just trying to defend his unsubstantiated claims?
Was Gonser trying to ‘get even’ with Warren Brown, since Mr. Brown made the following statement at the last Board meeting he attended prior to his resignation?

“If the Supervisor cannot admit the error of his ways, fill the chasm, and become more malleable in his approach to his position, he should follow my lead. . . . To offer his resignation would be an act of service for the greater good!”

Here is a transcript of the accusations Gonser made at the September 22 meeting.

Supervisor Gonser’s negative comments about Warren Brown Sept 22, 2015

Here is a video showing a portion of Gonser’s comments at the September 22 meeting, what Trustee Ferriolo said at the October 13 BOT meeting, and Gonser’s statement trying to defend himself.

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township? Supervisor Gonser has yet again failed to live up to one of his stated priorities when he ran for office. He told the League of Women’s voters that one of his top three priorities, if elected, was Integrity and establishing an Ethics Policy for Oakland Township. His most recent statement is yet another example of what many citizens have come to expect from our Supervisor.

There are many examples that make clear Mr. Gonser’s ‘personal’ ethical standards. The reader can determine if these actions meet their ethical standards. Here are a few (there are more that could be added). Each item is linked to a previous post that supports the statement:

In April of 2013 he lied at a Board meeting when he said he had sent a letter to the Attorney General “as an individual” regarding a Blossom Ridge issue.

In April of 2013, he stated, “There are policy decisions and strategies that must not be shared until after they have come to fruition.” So much for transparency!!!

He did not recuse himself in a vote on October 8, 2013 where he personally benefited from the outcome of the vote.

He refused to allow former Trustee Judy Keyes to comment at the May 13, 2014 Board meeting.

Gonser’s neighbor filed for Personal Protection Order against Gonser

On January 13, 2015, he admitted that he had called and cancelled the televising of a very significant meeting when he denied having done that in a Rochester Post article.

On January 13, 2015 he made slanderous comments against former Trustee Judy Keyes that he later retracted.

On January 13, 2015, he falsely accused fellow Board members of Open Meeting Act violations.

On March 24, 2015 he made false accusations against fellow Board members regarding sharing of Privileged and Confidential material.

Do these actions meet your ‘litmus test’ for ethical behavior?

Richard Michalski

Did Supervisor Gonser mislead voters in 2012 election, or did he not understand the job of Supervisor in our Township?

1 Reply

Several things occurred at the September 22, 2015 Oakland Township Board meeting that highlight the need for clear understanding of expectations when we elect our officials. Candidates running for office need to have an understanding of the structure and role for the position they are attempting to fill. If they want to change the structure or role, they should communicate their intentions during the campaign. Similarly, the voters that support the candidates need to have a clear understanding of what to expect from the candidates they support. The Board’s events at the September 22 meeting indicate we had neither in the election of Supervisor Gonser in the 2012 election.

At the September 22nd meeting, the Board was forced to make a motion to remove Supervisor Gonser from having a private office. Shortly after taking office in 2012, the Supervisor got the Board to agree to convert a conference room into an office that all of them could use as a ‘drop in office’. Over time, the Supervisor has taken over control of that room as his private office.

At the July 14, 2015 Board meeting, the Board approved an office rearrangement that had been under study for some time. It was unanimously approved by the Board members present. Gonser was not present at that meeting. The plan comprehended the increased needs of the Township. In that plan, the Supervisor and all Board members were provided a desk location that any could use to accomplish business while at the Township Hall. Since the Supervisor position is a part time position, not a full time position, historically, our Township has not had a dedicated office for the Supervisor (contrary to what Gonser claimed in his Sept 15th email).

As the office rearrangement was ready to begin, Warren Brown, our former Township manager, asked the Supervisor to remove his personal belongings from the office he had taken over. The Supervisor refused to do so, disregarding the Board’s direction from the July 14th meeting. The manager’s request, and the Supervisor’s response are shown in the following emails.

Gonser’s demand for personal office

Our Township Attorney advised the Supervisor that he does not have a statutory right to a private office, given the structure of our Township. Here is a quote from our Township attorney from the September 22 meeting:

” In this circumstance, given Ordinance 97 and the fact that we are a ‘manager run’ government, I have given the opinion, and I have spoken with the Supervisor about this directly, that I do not believe he is entitled to an office.”

In order to protect our Township’s interim manager Jamie Moore (Warren Brown has resigned) from having to deal with this contentious issue, the Board felt in necessary to make a formal motion to have Gonser remove his things from the room he had been using as his office. The motion was approved 6 to 1, with Gonser being the dissenting vote.

Gonser responded by saying:

“I guess if the Supervisor chooses to reside back there, I guess Lieutenant Spencer is going to have to be pressed into duty to call the Oakland Press and haul out the Supervisor- not a good scenario!”

Treasurer Langlois responded by saying:

“That’s your choice whether or not that be the scenario.”

Trustee Ferriolo added:

“Absolutely!”

Gonser concluded by saying:

“The Board’s choice.”

Later in the meeting, the Supervisor indicated that until recently, he had been spending 50 to 60 hours per week at the Township Office. He said he had provided Warren Brown a list of things that he had been working on shortly after Mr. Brown started work in the Township in March of this year. Gonser went on to say that he was disappointed with the lack of progress on the items during the 5 months that Mr. Brown was here. Many of these items have been issues long before Mr. Brown came to Oakland Township.

Gonser’s acknowledgment that he had been working on these items was a clear admission that he had violated Oakland Township’s Ordinance 97. This behavior is consistent with his repeated personal desire to be a “Strong Supervisor”. He went on to say that his actions were in response to what he believes are the desires of the people who voted him into office.

So, we have a Supervisor who:

disregards the July 14 Board decision regarding his office arrangements (just because he disagrees with it),
purposefully violates Ordinance 97 (just because he disagrees with it),
bases his actions on what he ‘believes’ the voters want him to do (even though it is contrary to the structure of the position he was elected to fill),
flagrantly disregards an Ordinance that he swore to uphold when he took his oath of office (even though he is legally obligated to follow and uphold the Ordinance).

Supervisor Gonser did not make clear, when he was running for office, that he wanted to change the structure of Oakland Township (i.e.. Strong Supervisor, private office, full time job for Supervisor, increased salary), yet he strongly believes that the majority of the citizens who voted for him agree with him. The Board, by a 6 to 1 vote, have repeatedly indicated they do not agree with him.

Here are video excerpts from the September 22, 2015 BOT meeting:

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township? Expectations for change when a person is running for office need to be clearly communicated by the candidates. Gonser truly believes that his mandate was to change the structure of Oakland Township’s governance, but he never made his intentions known to citizens during the campaign. Many citizens, including Board members and previous supporters, have changed their opinion of Supervisor Gonser over the past few years based on his actions. He is not what they ‘bought into’ when they voted for him.

I guess it is possible that Gonser did not understand the job of Supervisor in our Township prior to being elected. If that is the case, an argument can be made that his lack of understanding of the position is precisely why a ‘Manager’ form of government is good for our Township. If he did understand the job of Supervisor, and neglected to communicate his desire to change it, a deception occurred that we cannot let reoccur in 2016.

Our political system relies on our elected officials following through on the things they promised when campaigning. Having a personal agenda that is hidden from the voters, does not serve the community well. Ignorance over the job responsibilities does not serve our needs either. The chaos in our Township over the past three years is due to one of these occurring in our Township.

Richard Michalski

Planning Commissioner disappointed that Gonser did not add much needed experience to Planning Commission

1 Reply

At the September 1, 2015 Planning Commission meeting, Planning Commissioner Danny Beer expressed his disappointment that the Supervisor did not take advantage of the experienced candidates that submitted their applications for the two open Planning Commission positions. He acknowledged the need for adding people with Planning experience to the inexperienced Planning Commission and said the Supervisor “missed the boat by not putting some experience on this Planning Commission.”

Danny Beer is a Gonser appointment to the Planning Commission. He was added to the Planning Commission in 2014. Danny was present at the September 31st Board meeting where two Planning Commission appointments were to have been made. As previously reported, Supervisor Gonser wanted to appoint two individuals with no Zoning or Planning experience. The Board did not accept his recommendations. Gonser refused to nominate other candidates that did have Planning or Zoning experience.

At the September 1 Planning Commission meeting, Danny Beer stated:

“I was disappointed, personally disappointed, that there wasn’t more consideration given to the applicants who had a lot of experience. There were a a couple of people that were very anxious to be a part of this, with a lot of background, and I am new and have less planning experience than you guys that have at least dealt with it in your other workings. I never have.

In my opinion, we need some experienced help – some people to fall back on. Both of you guys have been very helpful, John and Ron, but we are all new at this, and I really feel we missed the boat by not putting some experience on this Planning Commission! “

Other Planning Commission members expressed their hope that the Supervisor would nominate one or two of the candidates that have the much needed experience and have submitted their applications for the openings.

Here is a video of the discussion at the Planning Commission meeting:

Adding fuel to the fire, Gonser was quoted in an article in the 9/1/15 edition of the Oakland Press as saying:

“I have to talk to people around the community and see who’s interested. Unless they’ve served on the planning commission, they don’t have experience.”

This statement reveals two things:

He does not intend to nominate any of the more experienced people who have applied for consideration.
He either doesn’t understand the type of experience being sought by the Board members who spoke on the record on the matter or he is spitefully misrepresenting their opinions in order to present himself as a victim of the Board’s refusal to support him.

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township? With six of the seven Board members recognizing the need for adding Planning experience to the Planning Commission, with several candidates having the much needed experience, and with a plea for help from the Planning Commission for that help, why would the Supervisor be reluctant to appoint individuals that have submitted their applications and are very qualified to help the Planning Commission?

If Gonser does not take appropriate action at the next Board meeting, I am afraid the Township may get involved in yet another legal issue that will do nothing but hurt Oakland Township.

The Supervisor needs to accept reality, and do what is right for the Township, not his ego!

Richard Michalski and Jim Foulkrod

Township Board does not approve Supervisor Gonser’s Planning Commission nominees!

2 Replies

At the July 31, 2015 Oakland Township Board meeting, the Township Board did not approve either of the two candidates that Supervisor Gonser brought forward for consideration for replacing Janine Saputo and James Carter on the Planning Commission. Saputo was the Planning Commission’s Secretary, and Carter was the Chairperson of the Commission. Their terms of appointment are up on September 1. The Supervisor refused to consider other applicants that the Board members felt were more qualified to meet the immediate needs of the Township.

The Supervisor indicated his selection of the nominees was based on gender diversity, where the nominees lived in the Township, and whether they lived on large parcels of property.

The reason the Board did not approve the two nominees was that the nominees did not have any Township experience in Zoning or Planning. The Board pointed out that with the previous changes to the Planning Commission, and other Planning personnel changes, the Township’s Planning experience has dropped below a critical level. One Trustee referred to the loss of expertise as a ‘hemorrhage’.

There were 13 residents that supported the Board’s position and their concern for the level of experience on the Planning Commission. There were only three individuals that supported Gonser’s position. One of the three was former Trustee Maureen Thalmann, who recently resigned from the Board. Another was Parks Commissioner Roger Schmidt, who is involved in a lawsuit against fellow Township’s Parks Commission members, and whose wife happened to be one of Gonser’s nominees.

Supervisor Gonser refused to nominate other individuals that had applied. Several of these do have Planning, Zoning, or Township subcommittee experience.

By State Law, only the Supervisor can nominate individuals for the Planning Commission. The Board has the authority to approve or reject his nominations.

When asked, the Township Attorney could not ‘shed any light’ on what procedurally will occur if the Supervisor does not appoint an acceptable candidate.

Here is a link to an Oakland Press article on the meeting:

Oakland Press article on August 31, 2015 Special BOT meeting

Here is a video of the Board members’ comments:

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township? As previously reported on this website, the level of experience on the Planning Commission is critical to preserving the character of Oakland Township.

The Planning Commission is currently faced with two significant challenges. One is consideration of a change to our Ordinance to limit oil and gas drilling in our Township to the fullest extent allowed by law, and the other is our new Master Plan. The Supervisor has already gone on record as not supporting any changes to our Ordinance to control oil and gas drilling in out Township. He also has repeatedly indicated he wants to change the Master Plan.

The Supervisor clearly wants to change the character of our Township. Continued vigilance is needed by the citizens to make sure he follows our wishes, not just his own political agenda.

A special thanks goes out to all of the citizens that came to the meeting on August 31. Your presence and comments give the Board the strength to act on your behalf,

Richard MIchalski

EDITORIAL: Has Gonser Willfully Violated the Law? We Need to Know.

4 Replies

In January this year the Board passed a resolution re-affirming the long-time Township ordinance that places responsibility for managing the township squarely in the office of the professional full-time manager hired by the Board of Trustees. It sent a clear message to Supervisor Gonser that he should act in accordance with the law. The Township Manager was directed to inform the Board of any deviance from that ordinance by the elected Supervisor. There has been no public follow up to this resolution. There have been no facts made public that would indicate that the resolved will of the Board of Trustees has or has not been followed.

What there has been is a constant drumbeat of statements, events and indications that Gonser is not following the law. It is Gonser’s sworn duty uphold the law and to perform the duties of his office to the best of his abilities. If he is not then the facts must come out and appropriate action must be taken.

I call on the Board of Trustees to launch an official investigation to ascertain with documented facts whether Supervisor Gonser has exceeded the authority of his office. They should call for a thorough search of emails, calendars, phone logs, official documents and correspondence to see whether Gonser has exercised illegal authority or claimed improper responsibility for any facet of any of the enumerated duties of the Township Manager.

I hope they will call on me to testify that I know that he has intentionally violated the ordinance because I had a conversation with Supervisor Gonser earlier this year in which he told me that he was not abiding by the law. I had gone to his office hours to ask if he had Board authorization to meet with the Road Commission of Oakland County (RCOC) to discuss his proposal to surface some gravel roads with a “chip-seal” material to improve their durability. Gonser had spoken at a community meeting about this proposal and his intent to work with the RCOC on this project. This type of township business is clearly the authority of the full-time Township Manager under our Ordinance 97. When I asked him if the Board gave him authority in this matter he said no, but it doesn’t matter because the people who voted for him expected him to be the “leader of the Township” and they would not have voted for him if they knew that all he could do was “chair the meetings”. He said he was doing the will of the voters.

I hope that they will ask Trustee Ferriolo to detail the facts behind his email to the Rochester Post that reportedly said “Our township operates on a similar system of government as Rochester, and Mr. Gonser refuses to accept his limited role under it.”

I hope that Treasurer Langlois and Trustee Buxar will go public with the facts that they described that led them to propose the above mentioned Resolution that demanded that Gonser act according to the law.

I hope that the Trustees who devised the interview questions that were asked of all the candidates who were interviewed for the Township Manager’s position about how they would handle this disagreement about legal authority in the Township will speak in detail about what they know that made it important to ask those questions.

I hope that outgoing Township Manager Warren Brown will be asked to detail, on the record, any violations of Ordinance 97 that he has knowledge of. He was informed of the problem during his interview process and he responded clearly about how he would handle the problem.

This is public business and the Board of Trustees must stop relying on toothless Resolutions. What is going on is not a secret but the hard actionable facts are being withheld from the public, This is not an academic argument. Gonser has harmed the Township with this behavior and it is truly in the best interests of Oakland Township to put and end to it. Effective action is required.

Jim Foulkrod