Tag Archives: Maureen Thalmann

Trustee Thalmann’s resignation and legal investigation

At the April 14, 2015 Oakland Township Board meeting, Supervisor Gonser announced that Trustee Maureen Thalmann had submitted a letter of resignation.  The Board voted 6 to 0 to accept her resignation.  Supervisor Gonser commented that Thalmann resigned for family reasons and that she is spending time promoting a book that she recently had published.

It should be mentioned that one month ago Maureen Thalmann was named as one of the subjects of an investigation into the sharing of confidential, attorney-client privileged documents with un-authorized persons.  At the April 14th meeting, the attorney’s findings prompted a motion by Treasurer Langlois to schedule a joint meeting between the Township Board and Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) to review the results of the investigation and determine what action, if any, needed to be taken.  The Board voted, 5 to 1, to schedule a Township Board closed session meeting, followed by a joint meeting with the Parks and Recreation Commission.  Supervisor Gonser was the sole objecting vote.

Here is some additional background on this topic:

    • At the March 10, 2015 Board meeting, Parks Commission member Ann Marie Rogers used ‘personal, private and/or confidential’ phone records when making several accusations against Trustee Buxar.
    • At the March 24th Board meeting, Trustee Buxar presented the results of an investigation into how Parks Commissioner Rogers obtained the phone records.  Here is a summary of her findings:

–  Because Anne Marie Rogers is involved in a lawsuit against the Township, in October of 2014, Ann Marie Rogers was informed that ANY request she made for Township documents MUST be made in writing, so the Township Attorney can review them prior to them being provided to her.

–  Email records confirmed that Commissioner Rogers and Trustee Thalmann were both informed of the requirement for written requests from Ann Marie Rogers for Township documents.

 –  In review of Township records, the only individual that had requested Trustee Buxar’s Township phone records was Trustee Thalmann.  There were no written requests for phone records from Commissioner Rogers, yet Commissioner Rogers used the phone record information in her March 10th accusations against Trustee Buxar.

–  Buxar’s findings also identified a much more serious issue :   Attorney-Client Privileged information had been shared inappropriately between Thalmann, Gonser and Rogers.

  • Treasurer Langlois commented on the severity of this situation:

“The magnitude of this breach simply cannot be overstated. The Board chose Supervisor Gonser and Trustee Thalmann as the two person subcommittee charged with representing the Board in good faith negotiations with the Parks and Recreation Commission. The fact that they shared privileged and confidential information prior to these meetings is extremely troubling and obviously, given the phone records, this isn’t the first time we have seen this.”

  • Treasurer Langlois then made the following motion, that was supported by Trustee Bailey.  The motions was unanimously approved.

“Secure all confidential communications and emails, including all communications and emails pertaining to closed sessions, and all attorney client privileged communications and emails, by and between the Oakland Township Board of Trustees and the Oakland Township Parks Commission for review by the Oakland Township Attorney.  To authorize the Oakland Township Manager to retain IT consultant, I.T. RIGHT, for assistance, if necessary.  To authorize the Oakland Township attorney to work with the Oakland Township Parks and Recreation attorney if necessary.”

  • At the April 14, 2015 Board meeting, the Board was given a memo from the Oakland Township attorney with the findings of his investigation.  The results were not shared with the public.
  • After a brief recess for Board members to review the memo, Treasurer Langlois commented:

“Given that the information contained in our review, and presumable their’s (the Parks and Recreation Commission’s), does affect both Boards, I would like to see this Board agree to the joint meeting (proposed by the PRC).”

  • The Board agreed, in a 5 to 1 vote, to hold a closed session meeting and then an open session joint meeting (at least for now) with the Parks and Recreation Commission, where the results of the investigation and potential actions will be discussed.  Supervisor Gonser was opposed to the meetings.

Here is a video supporting the statements made above:

 

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township?  The Board and Parks and Recreation Commission members swear to adhere to an oath of office.  Three of our elected officials may have violated their oath, and possibly the law.  There may be efforts made to prevent the facts on these allegations from being made public.  The citizens of Oakland Township deserve to understand what really took place. We do not need to know the content of any “privileged and confidential” letters, but we do need to know “who” sent “what” to “whom” so the citizens can consider the facts when voting in 2016.

Hopefully the joint meeting between the Board and the Parks and Recreation Commission will be an open meeting, and the facts will be made public.  The public deserves to know if our elected officials violated their oath of office.

Richard Michalski

Oakland Township hires new Township Manager/Superintendent

At the February 24, 2015 Oakland Township Board meeting, the Board announced, and approved, an employment agreement with Mr. Warren P. Brown as our new Township Manager/Superintendent.  Mr. Brown is currently the County Administrator for Sandusky County in Fremont Ohio.  

This approval came after two sets of interviews and public ‘meet and greet’ sessions.  The second set of interviews was required because several Board members had lingering concerns over how the candidates would have handled the many examples of unauthorized actions by our Supervisor.  The second set of interviews apparently convinced a majority of the Board that Mr. Brown was not only qualified for the position, but would respond to Supervisor Gonser’s unauthorized actions appropriately.

On January 23, 2015, interviews with three potential candidates for the Manager/Superintendent position took place.  Those interviews can be watched by visiting the Township website. A ‘meet and greet’ event took place the following day where the Board members and citizens could meet and interact with all three candidates.

During the initial interview, each applicant was asked if they had any questions or comments after the Board had completed their questions.  Mr. Brown asked the Board:

“I have been abundantly honest with you.  I trust that you will be with me.  You have had two managers in a year.  Can you tell me why?”

When he saw that the Board was struggling providing an answer, he said:

“If I am off base, just tell me right now. . . . .  Maybe that’s a conversation we will share tomorrow (during ‘meet and greet’) if I am invited back.”

Trustee Bailey responded by saying:

“I would personally prefer that approach… You are going to get a lot of different answers!”

During the January 27, 2015 deliberations regarding which candidate to select, several Township Board members were not comfortable that they understood how each of the candidates would respond to Supervisor Gonser’s attempts at assuming more responsibility than what he legally possessed.  This concern drove the need for a second set of interviews, this time with more direct questions.  Each Board member was asked to provide a list of potential questions.  They would be consolidated for use during the second interview.

The first and most direct question asked during the second interview was:

“The majority of the Board has voted to continue with our current form of governance in which the Superintendent/Manager is to fully handle the duties and responsibilities spelled out in Ordinance 97 in accordance with Charter Township Act 359.

However, the Supervisor continues to work full time and involves himself in significant portions of these duties and responsibilities.

Tell us what you would do to handle, or overcome this apparent conflict.  Have you ever encountered a similar situation, and what did you do in that circumstance to deal with that situation?”

Mr. Brown’s response apparently satisfied the Board members.  Here is a video of his response:

The majority of the Board selected Mr. Brown at the January 27th meeting, pending the final employment agreement, in a 5 to 2 vote.  Supervisor Gonser and Trustee Thalmann voted against the selection of Mr. Brown.  They were supportive of hiring the candidate that stated “I do not see a problem” with the Supervisor’s unauthorized actions.

There have been a number of previous post on this website dealing with Supervisor Gonser’s (and Trustee Thalmann’s) repeated attempts at changing the form of governance in Oakland Township.  In those posts, the reasons for having a professional Superintendent/ Manager handle the responsibilities defined in Ordinance 97 have been clearly stated.

The Board deals Gonser a one-two punch

Supervisor Gonser plots a vote to grant Supervisor ‘strong supervisor powers

Supervisor Gonser thinks Oakland Township form of government is ‘bizarre’ and unworkable

Supervisor Gonser and Trustee Thalmann attempt (once again) to have “Strong Supervisor” structure in Oakland Township

Trustees reject Supervisor Gonser’s desire to become a “Strong Supervisor”

It appears that we now have a qualified, fully empowered, person to fulfill those responsibilities.

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township?  The Township now has a well qualified, experienced, person that will be managing the Township in conformance with the responsibilities that he has been given.  He now recognizes the challenges that the former two Managers/Superintendents had in dealing with Gonser’s continued efforts to perform in a “Strong Supervisor” form of government, contrary the desires of the community and the Board.  He also recognizes he has the backing of the Board in dealing with any future authority issues with Supervisor Gonser.

Supervisor Gonser has repeatedly corrected citizens when they state that we have a ‘democracy’.   He corrects them by saying our government is a ‘democratic republic’, not a ‘democracy’.  The difference is that in a democratic republic, the citizens make their decisions during the elections, after that, the elected officials are the ones who make the decisions (not the citizens).

It appears that Supervisor Gonser now also understands that the Township elected officials (i.e..other Board members) have the authority to prevent a dictatorial form of government in our community.  .

I complement the Board for taking this long awaited action, and wish Mr. Brown a warm welcome, and a long tenure as our Township’s Manager/ Superintendent.

Richard Michalski

Were Supervisor Gonser and Trustee Thalmann’s negative votes a violation of their oath of office?

One of the agenda items for the January 13, 2015 Oakland Township Board meeting was a proposal, by Supervisor Gonser, to have Oakland Township go to a ‘Strong Supervisor’ form of government in 2016.  Although he had it on the published agenda, he removed the item at the beginning of the meeting.

During a discussion the Board had regarding Gonser’s unilateral decision to approve the surveying of parkland in Oakland Township for a potential gas main, the ‘Strong Supervisor’ concept came up. The result of those discussions was the ‘one – two’ punch to Gonser previously reported on this website.

Supervisor Gonser and Trustee Thalmann were the only two Board members who voted against reaffirming Ordinance 97, which defines the responsibilities of the Township Manager.  When the Board was sworn into office, they swore to uphold our Ordinances.  

The following video contains excerpts of the discussions that occurred at that meeting. It is about 6 minutes long, but well worth watching if you want to understand the positions of several of our Board members.

 

Link to January 12, 2015 Oakland Press article

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township?  Gonser placing the ‘Strong Supervisor’ issue on the agenda, then pulling it off, and his statement in the January 12th Oakland Press article, appear to have been an attempt at sabotaging the Board’s efforts to find a qualified Township Manager.

As you probably know, interviews for our Township manager position occurred on January 24th. Uncertainty regarding the potential longevity of the Township Manager position could reduce the qualified candidate pool.  Fortunately, the Board members, with the exception of Trustee Thalmann, wanted nothing to do with that uncertainty.  Treasurer Langlois, Clerk Reilly, Trustees Buxar and Bailey took very strong positions regarding Gonser’s proposal.  Trustee Giannangeli, who has been a strong supporter of Gonser to this point, made it very clear that he wants Gonser to operate in conformance with Ordinance 97.

Ordinance 97 is the Township Ordinance that defines the responsibilities of our Township Manager.  It is an ordinance that the Board has sworn to uphold.  By their statements, it is clear that the majority of the Board members feel that the Supervisor is not conforming to the Ordinance, hence the resolution to reaffirm the responsibilities of the Manager not the Supervisor.  Gonser and Thalmann voted to not to support the resolution that would reaffirm that Ordinance.

In my mind, Gonser’s many unilateral unauthorized decisions and actions without Board agreement (violating Ordinance 97), and Gonser and Thalmann’s negative vote on that resolution are violations of their oath of office.

If they do not want to conform to, and enforce, the existing Township Ordinances that they have sworn to uphold, they should resign.

Richard Michalski

Supervisor Gonser attempts to defend his lie in Rochester Post article

At the January 13, 2015 Oakland Township Board meeting, one of the agenda items was a discussion about the decision and authority to cancel the televising of the September 29, 2014 Board meeting(s).  It has previously been reported that Supervisor Gonser had cancelled the taping and televising of the meetings.  In those meetings, our former Township Manager, Ann Capela had first been fired, and later allowed to quit.  Many of the Board members did not agree with Gonser’s decision to cancel the taping of the meeting based on the resultant lack of transparency to our citizens.  They also questioned his authority to have made that decision.

When confronted with the facts about the cancellation, Supervisor Gonser acknowledged that he did call CMNtv to cancel the televising of the meetings, but then attempted to justify that decision by saying he was trying to protect Ann Capela reputation.  He made no apology for making the decision nor for lying to the Press.  In the September 29th meeting, both he and Trustee Thalmann were the only two Board members to not support firing Ann Capela.

The author of this post confronted Gonser in the meeting by saying that his rationale for not televising the meeting was NOT justification for lying to the Press when he said:

“It (the special meeting) was posted late on the website Sunday afternoon. There was no time to get the meeting televised.”

Here are the key video portions of this meeting regarding this issue:

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Townhip?  Most of the citizens of Oakland Township do not accept or condone Gonser’s lying in the Press (there was at least one citizen at the January 13 meeting who appeared to accept Gonser’s explanation).

This is not the first time that there has been documentation that our Supervisor has lied to the public.  One previous example was reported on this website where Gonser stated he had sent a letter requesting an opinion from our State Attorney General “as an individual”.  The letter he referred to was written 8 days AFTER he made that public statement.

Gonser’s lack of understanding that his rationale for making the decision is not justification for lying to the Press.  This is proof that his value system is based on “the end justifies the means”.

Gonser appears to subscribe to Machiavellian and Nixonian principles.

This post is one of several that support the actions taken by our Township Board at the January 13th meeting to try to stop Gonser’s many unauthorized decisions.

Richard Michalski

 

Supervisor Gonser thwarts promised transparency in Oakland Township and makes false statement to Rochester Post

As previously posted on this website, our former Township Manager, Ann Capela, resigned after the September 29, 2014 Special Board meeting.  Neither the Special meeting nor the Budget Workshop (that had been scheduled to be televised and taped) were televised or taped (or even audio recorded).  It has been determined that Supervisor Gonser was the one who made the decision to CANCEL the video taping and televising of this very important meeting, contrary to his statement in the Press that there was “no time to get the meeting televised’ .

A Board discussion of this cancellation is on the agenda for the January 13, 2014 Board meeting.

Here are the details:

  • A 6 PM televised Oakland Township Board Budget Workshop had been planned and scheduled for September 29, 2014.
  • A day or two before the meeting, several Board members determined that they wanted to have a special meeting (that would include a closed hearing, at the request of Ann Capela) to:

” consider a periodic personnel evaluation of a public officer, employee, staff member, or individual agent”

  • The official posting of the special 5:30 PM meeting met the timing requirements for notification to the public.
  • Based on documents obtained through the FOIA process, here are the records of communications that took place the day of the meetings:
  • At 2:15 PM on September 29th, Supervisor Gonser made a 4 minute call to the CMNtv Executive Director.  (CNMtv is responsible for taping and televising our Township meetings at the direction of the Township.)
  • At 2:20 PM on September 29th, Jamie Moore, a member of the Township staff, sent an email to the CMNtv Executive Director stating, “Terry said you were looking for the agenda for tonight.” She attached the link to the agenda for the 5:30 meeting.
  • At 2:31 PM the Executive Director responded to Jamie’s email and acknowledged receipt of the email.
  • At 2:59 PM Supervisor Gonser made a 2 minute call to the CMNtv Executive Director.

The two meetings scheduled for that day were neither taped or televised, even though the Budget Workshop had previously been scheduled for being taped and televised.

As reported in the minutes of the two meetings, Ann Capela’s contract had been terminated during the open portion of the Special meeting, but during the ‘Old Business’ portion of the Budget Workshop meeting, her ‘termination’ was revised to accept her ‘resignation’.

Supervisor Gonser and Trustee Thalmann were the only two Board members who voted against Ann Capela’s termination.  The later vote to accept her resignation was unanimously approved.

In the October 9, 2014 Rochester Post, Supervisor Gonser is quoted as saying,

“It (the special meeting) was posted late on the website Sunday afternoon.  There was no time to get the meeting televised.”

At the October 14, 2104 BOT meeting, Treasurer Langlois, stated that Gonser’s statement was inaccurate. She said:

“So, in fact, not having a video tape of the meeting was not due to a lack of time, but apparently due to an earlier administrative decision.”

At the November 17, 2014 BOT meeting, she went on to say:

“We (the Board) discovered, after the fact, that a decision was made to cancel the video taping of the meeting.”

Here is the video of Treasurer Langlois’ comments:

Why is this  important to the citizens of Oakland Township?  The Township is suppose to be managed by our hired Township Manager (under the leadership of our Board).  Other than the election of our officials, there is probably no more important decision that affects our Township.  Yet, Supervisor Gonser, who ran on improving ‘transparency’ in our Township made the decision to not televise or record this very important meeting.

Supervisor Gonser has claimed the decision to televise meetings is consistent with his campaign promise to improve transparency.  However, his unilateral decision to cancel the televising of  this very significant meeting, and then stating in the Press that “there was not time to get the meeting televised” is another clear example of his character and real feelings about transparency.

His decision to not record or televise this meeting reminds me of the statement he made in a previous meeting where he said “Process is everything”.  This is yet another example of Gonser’s ‘selective’ use of processes aimed at accomplishing his own hidden agendas.

So much for transparency and ethics under our current Supervisor!

A person's actions tell you everthing you need to know

Richard Michalski

Parks Commission action may have prevented Township Board from violating Michigan’s Elliott-Larson Civil Rights Act

As reported recently, the second lawsuit against Oakland Township over the Blossom Ridge Development was filed on December 11, 2014.  One of the claims made in the filing is that:

“The Township’s disregard of and seeming inability to comprehend its FHA obligations is systematic and pervasive”

The above claim is based  a Board decision at the December 10, 2013 Board meeting to have the Parks Commission ‘refrain’ from making an offer to a potential caretaker for the Lost Lake Park.  This individual was the choice of the Parks and Recreation Commission.  The Board’s concern was the potential liability of extending this job to the recommended person since the family had young children.    

Fortunately, the Parks Commission had performed their ‘due diligence’ in getting input from the Township’s Insurance company as well as the Park Commission’s Attorney, and proceeded with their selection.  Had the Park’s Commission rejected the selected caretaker based on the Township Board’s concern, the Township could have been charged with violating the Elliot Larson Act for using familial status as a reason for not hiring the caretaker.

Here is the information included in the Moceri/DM investment LLC and Joan Buser vs. Charter Township of Oakland filing – 12/11/14:

  1. The Township’s disregard of and seeming inability to comprehend its FHA obligations is systematic and pervasive as evidenced by the following illustration.
  1. The Township owns a park with a house on a lake.
  1. For years the Township leased the house to a caretaker who lived in the house and maintained the house and park.
  1. In 2013 the Township Parks and Recreation Department hired a new caretaker and as usual agreed to the caretaker’s occupancy of the house.
  1. On December 10, 2013, twenty minutes after voting to deny a reasonable accommodation for the disabled prospective residents of Blossom Ridge, Board of Trustees Member and Township Treasurer Jeanne Langlois moved to set aside the Parks Commission’s hiring of the caretaker because the caretaker has a family including two young children, starting the following exchange:

Treasurer Langlois:   Move that the Board make a review of that potential situation [a lease of Twp property to a Family with Minor Children]…and make a motion to authorize the Township Supervisor to formally request that the Parks and Recreation Commission refrain from entering into a caretaker contract until the liability issues can be reviewed by the Township insurance agent and Township legal counsel.

Trustee Bailey:  Is this the first that you’re aware of that we have done such a thing [lease to a family with minor children]?

Treasurer Langlois:  Yes, I understand there was a caretaker in the past, there were no minor children that I know of and then the initial approval recently was for a new caretaker that did not involve a family with minor children and when that fell through this apparently prompted the Parks [commission] to look at family with 2 very small children.

Trustee Bailey:  How small are they?

Treasurer Langlois:  Six and two.

  1. The Langlois motion was approved unanimously.
  1. No Board Member mentioned the protection of families with children against housing discrimination under Federal and Michigan law. No one ventured a thought as what this action’s impact on the caretaker and his family. The caretaker would be deprived of both housing and employment. The Board wondered whether their insurance rates might be affected. They did not consider that children play in the park everyday. The Board thoughtlessly assumed that landlords of properties fronting Michigan’s 11,000 inland lakes and thousands of miles of Great Lakes shoreline are exempt from Federal and Michigan laws prohibiting discrimination against families with children.
  1. The foregoing episode illustrates the current Township Board’ impenetrable indifference to its fair housing obligations. To its credit the Parks Commission ignored the Board.

Here is a copy of the Michigan Elliott-Larson Civil RIghts Act.

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township?  Only the court will determine if the example shown above will have an impact on the final decision regarding Blossom Ridge.  However, another conclusion can be made from this example.

Ever since early 2013, the Township Board and the Parks and Recreation Commission have had separate law firms providing legal guidance.  The decision by the Parks Commission to retain their own counsel was based the Board’s confrontational actions toward the Parks Commission (some of which are involved in legal actions BETWEEN the two elected bodies).

Examples of the Board’s confrontational actions against the Parks and Recreation Commission can be seen by scrolling through the articles in the following link (this article is the first one shown, so please scroll through the entire list):

“Board vs. Parks”

Trustee Thalmann consistently points out, during her “Trustee Comments” at Board meeting, the legal expense that the Parks Commission has incurred for the month.  The contract with the Board’s legal team technically includes legal support for the Parks and Recreation Commission. She claims that the Park’s legal expenses are not necessary, since they would be covered by the contract with the Board’s legal team. It should be pointed out the the Board’s legal team did not advise the Board against making their December 10, 2013 motion.

It appears that the Parks Commission’s legal counsel, and the decision by the Parks Commission to proceed with extending the offer to the family with children, may have prevented the Township from a lawsuit involving a Elliott-Larson civil rights violation.

Oakland Township’s legal expense has increased dramatically since the new Board has come into office.  The legal fees incurred by the Parks Commission are totally eclipsed by the legal fees incurred as a result of lawsuits our Township is involved in since the new Board took office.

The Township should be grateful for the actions taken by the Parks and Recreation Commission based on the legal advice from their separate legal counsel.

Richard Michalski

 

 

 

Supervisor Gonser thinks Oakland Township’s form of government is “bizarre” and unworkable

On November 11, 2014 the Oakland Press posted an article that reported on the current employment status of Oakland Township’s former manager, Ann Capela.  As reported previously, she agreed to terminate her employment as Oakland Township’s manager on September 29, 2014.  In the Oakland Press article, Supervisor Gonser indicated that he agreed with the former manager’s assessment that the political structure in Oakland Township is ‘unworkable’.  Gonser went on to say that it is a ‘bizarre’ form of government.  

At the November 11, 2014 Oakland Township Board meeting, the Board voted to authorize a consulting firm to initiate a Township Manager search to replace Ann Capela.  The motion was approved in a 6 to 1 vote.  Supervisor Gonser was the sole dissenting vote.

Here are some of the highlights of the Oakland Press article:

  • Ann Capela, our former manager, was hired by the city of Bethel, Alaska.
  • Regarding her September 29th agreement to terminate her contract as Oakland Township Manager, Capela stated:

“(Oakland Township has) a challenging political structure that soon became unworkable.”

  • The article states that Terry Gonser, the current Township Supervisor, agreed with her assessment.
  • He went on to say:

“We have a bizarre, unique form of government.”

  • Commenting on Ann Capela’s new assignment, he stated:

“She won’t be subjected to so much micromanagement.”

“She won’t be pulled in different directions.”

  • Trustee Thalmann, who voted to retain Capela, also supported the Supervisor’s opinion regarding the Township’s form of governance.

Here is a link to the Oakland Press article:

Former Manager: Oakland Townships structure ‘unworkable’

 Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township?  Oakland Township has had the current structure since the early 1990’s.  There were no issues raised under the previous three Supervisors (Buser-Hoffman-Fogler) with the current form of government.

Supervisor Gonser, as well as Trustee Thalmann, continue to want to change the structure to one with a “Strong Supervisor”.  There have been several previous articles posted on this website regarding Gonser’s attempt to change the Township structure.  Here are those articles:

Supervisor Gonser and Trustee Thalmann attempt (once again) to have a “Strong Supervisor” structure in Oakland Township

 Trustee’s reject Supervisor Gonser’s desire to become a ‘Stong Supervisor’

 Can we Trust Supervisor Gonser with more authority

Gonser and Thalmann have recently been in the ‘minority position’ on a number of Board decisions.  This could be a contributing reason for their desire to have Gonser become a ‘Strong Supervisor’.  He would then be able to make Township operational decisions without the consent of the entire Board.

The current political structure allows a trained professional Manager or Superintendent to manage the Township with direction from the Board. Having the operational decisions made by an untrained political elected official would not only dilute the authority of the Board, but would result in chaos and confusion in our Township after each Board election.  It would highly politicize the day to day operation of our Township.

Supervisor Gonser has indicated that he spends 50 hours per week on Township business.  His position is suppose to be a part time position.  His presence at the Township Hall most likely caused the micromanagement that Capela complained about. The Treasurer and Clerk probably had to spend additional time at the Township Hall making sure Gonser did not give direction on items impacting their departments – probably contributing to Capela being pulled in different directions.

Fortunately, the current Board has consistently objected to changing the political structure of our Township.  I hope that continues!  Their decision to approve the search for a replacement for Ann Capela is a good start.

Richard Michalski