Tag Archives: Mike Bailey

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

The October 9, 2014 Rochester Post had an article about the termination of the former Oakland Township manager’s contract.  In that article, Supervisor Gonser made comments that indicate he wanted to reconsider Oakland Township’s governance structure. Last year, he lobbied for having a full time “strong supervisor” structure vs. the current system (a part time supervisor and a full time professional manager).  

At the October 14th Board meeting, Trustee Thalmann indicated she wanted to revisit the “strong supervisor” proposal.  She made this comment after Trustee Bailey made a motion to have our current assistant manager, Jamie Moore, temporarily fill that position until a new manager was selected.  Gonser and Thalmann’s proposal was met with thoughtful objections from other Board members and citizens.  After considerable debate, the Board approved the temporary position for Jamie Moore, and authorized a search for a full time manager.

In the October 9th Rochester Post article, Supervisor Gonser is quoted as saying:

“The Township Board will have to discuss hiring –or not hiring– a new Township manager”

In the article, he went on to argue that Oakland Township is in the minority of Townships since we have an elected part time Supervisor and a full time manager or superintendent.

At the October 14th Board meeting, Trustee Bailey made a motion to have the current Township assistant manager fill the manager position until a permanent full time manager is selected.  He specifically included the designated statutory responsibilities “A through O” as part of her responsibilities.  He stated that he felt it was inappropriate for the Supervisor to assume those responsibilities.

Trustee Thalmann challenged Bailey’s comment and indicated that she wanted the Board to revisit the “strong Supervisor” structure.  She said:

“The Supervisor’s job is designed for all but 42 of the 1200-and-something charter townships in the state.  I still hold the opinion that a ‘strong supervisor’ and a deputy perhaps is a better way to go.”

Trustee Bailey and Treasurer Langlois expressed strong objection to revisiting this issue.  Bailey commented:

“We certainly debated that ‘ad infinitum’ and we concluded we do want to retain a township manager.”

Langlois commented:

“I like the idea of having a township manager that reports to the board.”

Several citizens expressed their objection to Thalmann’s proposal.  Reg Brown challenged Gonser and Thalmann’s comparison to other communities by saying:

“The statement that a small number of the 1240 townships do this (a part time Supervisor and a full time professional manager rather than a full time strong Supervisor) is a faulty comparison.  A great number of those townships have 200 to 300 people in them, so what does that have to do with what Oakland Township would do?”

Frank Ferriolo strongly objected to the proposal by stating:

“We spent 3 months last year going over, nitpicking if you will, this whole process of ‘strong supervisor’ vs. township manager having the “A through O” responsibilities.  We concluded our best interest is that the current form that we have is a good form.

The other thing I found a little bit curious is that both Mr. Gonser and trustee Thalmann were the champions of a ‘strong supervisor’ without a township manager.  Yet they were the only two that voted to keep the township manager (Capela) in the vote.

There would be great difficulty dismissing a ‘rogue’ supervisor and deputy.”

Gonser has previously stated that he spends over 50 hours per week in the Township Office, yet the Supervisor position is a part time position.

The Board ultimately voted on Bailey’s motion and approved it in a 6 to 1 vote.  Thalmann was the only negative vote.

There was also an issue raised whether Gonser should be the one offering the temporary position to the assistant manager.  After much discussion, the Board agreed to have Gonser extend the offer with the express statement that “the Board was making the offer”, not Gonser.

The Board voted on having Gonser extend the offer.  It passed in a 6 to 1 vote.  Thalmann was once again the exception.

Here is a video of the October 14th proceedings:

We should have seen this coming with Gonser’s post on Linkedin.  The responsibilities he states exceeds his statutory responsibilities.  The ENTIRE Board has those responsibilities and they delegated those to the Township Superintendant/ Manager – Jim Creech at that time.

Here is Gonser’s post to Linkedin:

Supervisor – Charter Township of Oakland, Oakland County, MI – (November 2012 to present)

Chief elected officer of the Township. Responsible for budgets, personnel, and all aspects of township government and Chairman of the Board of Trustees. Also a member of the Board of Directors of the tri-municipality Older Persons Commission.

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township?  The majority of the Board members are beginning to recognize and exercise their statutory responsibilities.  They are no longer acting as the formal approvers of Gonser’s opinions and agendas.  The Board, collectively, is more important than the supervisor.  For their recent actions and votes, the citizens should be grateful.

The fact that Gonser admitted spending 50 hours per week, on what should be a part time position, is evidence that he is doing more than what he is authorized to do.  In essence, he is managing the Township as a “Strong Supervisor”.  Could that be why both he and Thalmann did not support terminating our former manager’s contract? Was he doing her work, and she was not opposed to him doing it?

Time will tell if the Board is able to ‘restrain’ the Supervisor from using his position in inappropriate manners.  It looks like the majority of the Board is beginning to recognize the issue and hopefully will ensure their authority is not usurped by Gonser. The Board’s motion that explicitly states the Board is extending the temporary offer to the assistant manager clearly is intended to let the temporary manager know that she reports to the entire Board – not just the Supervisor.

Here are some related articles previously posted on this website:

Former article on “strong supervisor’ structure

Can we trust Supervisor Gonser with more authority

Richard Michalski

Oakland Township Board potentially commits $431,875 of Township funds to improve private property outside ANY public meeting

On January 24, 2014, the Oakland Township Board submitted a proposal that would commit $431,875 of Township funds as part of a proposed Grant application for funds to restore the Millrace at the Paint Creek Cider Mill.  This proposal was never discussed or disclosed in any public meeting. A portion of this money would be spent on improving the millrace that exists on private property.  This is yet another action our Township Board has taken that may have violated the Open Meetings Act.  It may have been another unilateral decision made by our Supervisor to proceed on a project outside the ‘public eye’.  A request has been made to the Oakland County Sheriff’s office for further investigation on this matter as a possible Open Meeting Act violation.

Several years ago there was a project supported by the DNR, the Clinton River Watershed Council and Oakland Township to remove the Paint Creek Dam to allow fish passage and improve the natural habitat in Paint Creek.  The dam historically diverted a portion of Paint Creek’s water to the Millrace that powered the water wheel at the Paint Creek Cider Mill.  The removal of the dam, as well as the sediment that had built up over many years, now prevent water from flowing down the millrace to the Cider Mill.  A significant portion of the millrace land is owned by private citizens.  The Township has been attempting to find a solution to get water flowing back through the millrace to get the Cider Mill wheel turning again.

In reviewing the minutes of previous meetings, the Township Board never officially made a motion to establish a subcommittee to work on this project.  However, Supervisor Gonser, Trustee Bailey and Trustee Buxar apparently worked as an ad hoc committee on this project.

Originally, the Township used the Engineering services of Wade Trim on this project.  The Board later changed the Engineering firm to ECT (Environmental Consulting and Technology, Inc.).  On January 24, 2014, John O’Meara P.E., from ECT, submitted a proposal for a grant application to the Clinton River Watershed Council for their consideration on behalf of Oakland Township. The proposal was then forwarded to the Michigan DNR for their consideration.

The total cost for the project is $863,750.  Oakland Township’s portion for this project is $431,875.

There were no public meetings or public discussions regarding the Township committing over $400,000 for this project.  At the April 22, 2014 BOT meeting, Supervisor Gonser indicated that there was no need for a public announcement.

ECT will be making a presentation at the May 13, 2014 BOT meeting where this project will now be discussed.  We expect our Board to provide answers to:

  • why they did not feel it necessary to obtain citizen input on this proposal prior to submission to the Clinton River Watershed Council,
  • who authorized the request be submitted, and
  • why they feel it is appropriate to spend public funds on private property.

Here is a copy of the grant request and the associated letters:

ECT request on behalf of Oakland Township

Here is a video of comments from Trustee Buxar, Trustee Bailey and Supervisor Gonser regarding the ECT submission.  Please take note of Supervisor Gonser’s comment that a public notice for the meeting discussing this proposal was not necessary:

Correspondence from Board members after the April 22nd meeting occurred.  Treasurer Langlois responded by saying:

“Not revealing this (the grant request) does not help citizens and does not meet my definition of transparency”

Trustee Buxar responded by saying:

“I was not informed of this until after the correspondence with the Clinton River Water Council.  I believe this matter was handled by the Supervisor.  The only matter discussed by the subcommittee were the SAW grant applications that were approved by the Board in November.”

So did the ad hoc subcommittee discuss this proposal and approve it outside the public eye, or did Supervisor Gonser make a unilateral decision to submit the proposal?  In any case, our Township leadership is acting either illegally or inappropriately.  Supervisor Gonser’s comment that the discussion did not need to take place in a publicly noticed meeting is yet another display of his arrogance and dictatorial leadership style. It is consistent with his previous definition of transparency.  (Click on link to read his previous statement)

Supervisor Gonser and the members of the ad hoc committee may claim that they were only trying to determine if the various approval groups (CRWC – Clinton RIver Watershed Council, Public Advisory Council (PAC) and DNR) would support the requested grant request.  This approach is contrary to the procedure for submitting a grant request according to the CRWC. The PAC is a 25 community member advisory council for the Clinton River Watershed area. The DNR is the State agency that controls the rivers and streams in our State.  Asking those groups to “weigh in” on their support prior to obtaining the requesting community’s agreement to pay for the improvements on private property is outside the process. Besides, why would you ask for support for a grant request before you ask the citizens of the Township if it is appropriate to spend tax dollars on private property improvements?  Only in Oakland Township!

Last year at a Board meeting on another subject, Supervisor Gosner commented:

In an email he sent to Board members last year, he said;

“While I am for transparency, there are policy decisions and strategies that must not be shared until after they have come to fruition.” 

So it appears Supervisor Gonser uses “process” as a defense to not do something he does not want to do, but uses his definition of “transparency” to do things he wants to get done outside the public eye.

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township? Having the Supervisor, or an ad hoc Board committee, develop and submit a proposal that would cost the Township over $400,000 outside any public meeting is inappropriate and possibly illegal.  Supervisor Gosner’s denial of any wrongdoing in previous Open Meeting Act violation investigations indicate that the Board is not willing to change their behavior and listen to the Oakland County Prosecutor’s office reprimands.

Since much of the potential cost for this project would be on private property, why would our Supervisor feel that it was not necessary to disclose the cost to the citizens in an Open Meeting?  Is it because some of the benefactors of this proposal were contributors to his campaign?

The citizens of Oakland Township need to understand what is occurring in our Township and demand the ‘transparency’ that Gonser claims to be providing.

Please attend the May 13th Board meeting to hear how the Board justifies their behavior.

Please review the following previous posts regarding similar actions by our Board and Supervisor Gonser.

 Supervisor Gonser’s definition of “transparency”

Another Open Meeting Act violation being investigated by Oakland County

Supervisor Gonser’s request for Attorney General Opinion

Gonser’s actions define his leadership style

Another Open Meeting Act violation or dictatorship in Oakland Township?

Gonser denies any wrongdoing – Prosecutor’s letter tells another story

 

Richard Michalski

Supervisor Gonser demonstrates his lack of knowledge of Oakland Township Zoning

At the April 8th Oakland Township Board meeting, Supervisor Gonser commented on the current zoning of Oakland Township.  He commented that Oakland Township Zoning not only drove the agricultural businesses out of the Township, but that it allows Oakland Township to be developed like Rochester Hills and Troy.   Supervisor Gonser indicated that the Board needs to ‘change the zoning so it does not develop into Rochester Hill and Troy’.  Trustee Bailey, who was on the Township Planning Commission for many years, corrected Gonser’s mis-statements. 

During the April 8th Township Board meeting discussion about the Rochester Cider Mill, Supervisor Gonser made comments about the existing zoning in Oakland Township.  He stated that the zoning that has been in place for many years has caused the agricultural uses to disappear in our Township.  He went on to say:

“Right now, the zoning is set up to develop Oakland Township just like Rochester Hills and Troy.”

Trustee Bailey challenged Gonser’s comment as not being factual.

Gonser continued by saying:

“I am suggesting that the way it has been zoned does not preclude significant development.  It is up to this Board to change that so it does not develop into Rochester Hills and Troy.  RIght now, that is not necessarily true!”

Trustee Bailey responded by saying

“I beg to differ.  I looked at the Master Plan and it does not resemble Rochester Hills.”

For Gonser to suggest that it would have been better for the Township to not have rezoned the land from Agricultural to Residential, when the inevitable growth was coming, is irrational and quite frankly poor planning. Developers could have bought the land and then asked for all kinds of zoning.  That is precisely why Rochester Hills and Troy are the way they are.

One need only drive down Rochester Road from Oakland Township and witness the dramatic change in land usage as you travel South.  The prior Township Boards and Planning Commissions have provided our Township a great service by protecting our Township’s natural beauty through the existing zoning and Master Plan.

Attached are copies of the Zoning maps for Oakland Township, Rochester Hills and Troy.  Supervisor Gonser needs to take a close look at these to recognize that what he said is not true.

Oakland Township Zoning map

Rochester Hills Zoning Map

Troy Zoning map

Here is a video of the discussions at the April 8th meeting:

Why is this important to Oakland Township residents?  Supervisor Gonser clearly has intentions of changing the zoning.  As he has opportunities to place people, with like thinking, on the Planning Commission and the open position on the Board, he may have enough support from his followers that inappropriate changes will be made.  The citizens of Oakland Township need to understand what his zoning intentions are.  He needs to exhibit the transparency that he speaks so often about and share his vision of the zoning changes he wants to see.

Richard Michalski

Township Board members’ testimony to Oakland County Sheriff investigator are not consistent with Treasurer Langlois’ recorded message

During the investigation into the alleged Open Meeting Act violations by our Township Board, Detective Sergeant Cole, from the Oakland County Sheriff’s office, interviewed Trustee Bailey, Trustee McKay, Supervisor Gonser and Treasurer Langlois. One of the alleged violations pertained to how the Board arrived at the 18 month duration for the concessionaire’s agreement at the Paint Creek Cider mill.  Those interviews were documented in a case file that was then forwarded to the Prosecutor’s office for their consideration.

On the morning of April 15, 2013, Treasurer Langlois left a voice message on then Trustee Keyes’ answering machine informing her of the subcommittee’s recommendation they would be making at that evening’s Board meeting regarding the concessionaire’s agreement.  Treasurer Langlois’ voice message not only is inconsistent with what she and Trustee Bailey told the investigator as part of their official testimony,  but also reveals the motive for why they wanted an 18 month duration on the agreement – to enable their preferred concessionaire candidate to take over the facility in the future.

Here is a copy of Trustee Bailey’s April 18th email that indicated a decision had been made by a quorum of the Board outside an open meeting.

Mike Bailey’s April 18th email

Here is a statement Trustee Bailey made to Detective Sergeant Cole on October 11, 2013 as recorded in the case file:

  • Bailey stated he misspoke in his email when he said it was the belief of the subcommittee (along with Supervisor Gonser) to change the contract from 24 to 18 months.  Bailey intended to say it was only his desire to alter the contract duration.

Here are statements Supervisor Gonser made to Detective Sergeant Cole on October 4, 2013 as recorded in the case file:

  • Gonser said the Board realized they did not want the contract to end in the high season so they took action to change it.
  • Gonser said that the contract was going to be either 1 1/2 or 2 1/2 years in length, and the Board opted for the former because they could cancel it at any time.  Gonser said the subcommittee had nothing to do with the end date of the contract and if they did, he was not aware of it.

Note: Gonser’s above references to Board “actions” never took place in an open public forum.

Here are statements Treasurer Langlois made to Detective Sergeant Cole on October 17, 2013 as recorded in the case file:

  • She (Langlois) said the term of the concessionaire’s contract was discussed in the subcommittee, however she said the subcommittee agreed that the length of the contract was outside the “purview” of the subcommittee.
  • Langlois said that she was not in favor of changing the concessionaire’s contract from 24 to 18 months and the  subcommittee agreed that this  was not an issue the that the subcommittee should address.
  • She stated the subcommittee never agreed to address the issue of duration of the contract.
  • Langlois was asked if she was aware when she saw the email from Mike if she knew it was an Open Meeting Act violation and she said yes.
  • Langlois said she called Mike and informed him that his email was not correct and to confront him with the fact that the subcommittee reached an agreement.

HOWEVER:  On April 10, 2013 Treasurer Langlois sent an email to two other subcommittee Board members suggesting that they determine if the previous owner of the Cider Mill was still interested in pursuing his offer, since he would not immediately be able to use all the floor space he wanted. She also suggested that if a shutdown for a new concessionaire was to occur due to building modifications, “do we want to make sure that only happens in the winter months?”

April 10th emails

The above statements are what the Board members told the investigator in their investigation.  However, on the morning of April 15, 2013, the day the Board was going to take action on the concessionaire’s agreement, Treasurer Langlois left a message on Trustee Keyes’ answering machine. The following is a transcription of a portion of the message:

“We talked extensively over the weekend and met last night (April 14th) …..

We are going to conclude that based on the fact that the two timing issues of required shut down in the summer, which Jerry ( Jerry Mancour was one of the concessionaires who applied for the using the facility), as well as time for implementation which he (Jerry) would also need, which we can’t even address since we don’t have the community center space set up and running, and we don’t have final plans to get water in the millrace (which Jerry was going to use in his proposal).  So based on that, Ed Granchi’s proposal scored higher than Jerry’s.

Our recommendation is going to be Mr. Granchi’s proposal be renewed in a similar fashion to the existing concessionaire’s agreement which is actually an 18 month lease (NOT TRUE) with various and differently worded options for renewal.”

As reported in Detective Sergeant Cole’s report, when Trustee Keyes (while still in office) and Trustee McKay forced our Township Attorney Dan Kelly to listen to the message in his office, our Township attorney’s response was:

“The phone message will not help the situation!” (The alleged OMA violation)

In subsequent conversations the author of this post had with John Slevin from the Prosecutor’s Office, John stated that the verbal testimony given by the Board members outweighed Mike Bailey’s April 18th, 2013 email where he stated that the subcommittee and Supervisor Gonser agreed to have the concessionaire’s agreement specify an 18 month duration.  He stated that is why formal charges were not being issued to the Board members.

Here are copies of the entire case file:

Detective Sergeant Cole’s case file report on OMA investigation

Here is the entire audio recording of Treasurer Langlois’ message:

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township?  We expect our officials to be truthful.  The discrepancies between what the Board members told the investigator and what Treasurer Langlois stated in her message to then Trustee Keyes indicate that our Board members are not meeting that ethical standard or adhering to the Open Meetings Act.

Treasurer Langlois’ message clearly documents how the Board uses their power to implement their objectives outside the public eye. Here are the Motive, Means and Methods that they used:

  •  Motive – Make it possible for the other potential concessionaire to takeover the Cider Mill space as soon as practical.
  • Means – Concessionaire’s agreement duration
  • Method – Change the duration of the agreement to 18 months so their preferred candidate could have access to the facility.

All of this accomplished while ‘covering their tracks’ by making inaccurate statements to the investigator!

Is this the type of honest and ‘transparent’ governance our Township residents expect?  If not, please get involved in watching our Township leaders by either coming to meetings, watching cable Channel 17 or by continuing to monitor this site.

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY POSTED ON THIS SUBJECT READ:

Open Meeting Act violation regarding Paint Creek CIder Mill Concessionaire’s agreement

Another Potential OMA violation being investigated 

Supervisor Gonser denies any wrongdoing

Richard Michalski

Another Open Meeting Act Violation or a Dictatorship in Oakland Township??

As we continue to review the documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act request made by Mr. Marc Edwards, we find discrepancies in some the statements made by our Township Board and written, audio or video documentation.  

What follows is a timeline of events (with supporting documentation) that indicate there are discussions, and Township policy decisions made by our Board outside the public eye.  If these discussions and decisions are not made in Open Public meetings, the decisions are violations to the Open Meetings Act.  If they are not decisions the Board is making, then our Supervisor is making unilateral “dictatorial” decisions.

A previous possible Open Meeting Act violation is under review by the Oakland County Sheriff’s Special Investigation Unit.  The information on that issue is discussed on this website under the ‘Ethics’ page as ‘Open Meeting Act Violation’.

Here is the information on this issue:

  • On April 1, 2013 James Creech, the Township Superintendent, issued a memo to the Chairman of the Parks Commission (a separately elected Body from the Township Board) indicating that the Land Preservation Fund would now be administered by the Township Superintendent and the Board of Trustees. Here is that memo:

Land Preservation takeover letter – April 1

  • On April 3rd, a Township Citizen sent an email to Trustees Bailey and McKay asking if the Board of Oakland Township met to discuss the action taken by the Supervisor in authorizing the memo.
  • On April 4th, Trustee McKay sent an email to Trustee Bailey indicating she had no knowledge of the April 1 directive, and questioned whether it had been brought up by the Board.
  • Trustee Bailey then sent an email to Supervisor Gonser, with copy to Trustee McKay,  explaining how the Land Preservation Fund had been managed in the past.  He goes on to say:

“I don’t remember discussing this takeover at the (March 18th) Monday evening Budget meeting……  At any rate, I don’t have a problem with us taking this over if Legal has told us that we should be doing this and not the Parks and Recreation Commission.”

  • Supervisor Gonser responded to Trustee Bailey by saying:

“I forgot you weren’t at the Budget Workshop.  I brought this up at the time and the Board supported the change.

  • Treasurer Langlois responded to Supervisor Gonser’s email by stating:

“Interesting that someone is forwarding inter office communications to (a citizen).”

  • On April 6th, Supervisor Gonser responds to Treasurer Langlois by stating:

“While I am for transparency, there are policy decisions and strategies that must not be shared until after they have come to fruition. —-  I think we have to be careful as to what we circulate in emails.  Phone calls may be in order.”

A review of the minutes of the March 18th meeting indicate that Trustee Bailey was present  and that no decision had been made by the Board.  Also, in listening to the audio tape of the March 18th Budget meeting, although the Land Preservation fund was discussed for almost 19 minutes (Audio file BoT 3-18-13.m3u from 2:47:00 to 3:06:00) there was no discussion or decision about having the Board take over the administration of the Land Preservation Fund.  The audio file also confirmed that Trustee Bailey was present at the meeting.

However, on March 21st, Supervisor Gonser sent an email to “Friends” (the Township Board members) stating:

“We need to rethink our approach to the budget process for right now………. The last change would be that we announce that the Land Preservation millage will be managed by the township administration as it should have been from its inception.”

This decision was either agreed to by the Board outside a public meeting, or Supervisor Gonser implemented it unilaterally.

  • On April 5th, Trustee Bailey responded to the resident who wrote the April 3rd memo  inquiring about the Board’s decision process by stating:

“The Board of Oakland Township agrees this change made sense to do.”

  • Later that day, the citizen responded to Trustees Bailey and McKay by stating:

“I hope Terry (Gonser) and the Board of Oakland Township has an understanding that there will be very few, if any, other groups like the Parks and Rec and Trails group that will not feel like they are outsiders in their own township if this dictator type of management continues.”

When the Parks Commission received the April 1 letter, there was obvious consternation regarding the fact that the Township Board was planning on taking over the administration of the Land Preservation fund, since the Parks Commission has administered it since its voter approval in 2001.

  • On July 15, 2013, a joint public meeting was held between the Township Board and the Parks Commission to come to some understanding between the two groups on this, and other, issues between them.
  • At the July 15th meeting, Trustee Bailey states:

“It (how the Land Preservation Fund was administered by the Parks Commission) seemed to be working for a long time nicely.  I do not understand why it became an issue.”

How does this statement compare to his comment in the April 5th email that the change “made sense to do”?

  • At the same meeting, Parks Commissioner Colleen Barkham asked for clarification on how the Board came to the decision to take over the administration of the Land Preservation Fund.
  • Trustees Keyes and McKay indicated that they had not seen the memo until after it was issued, and did not participate in any discussion on this subject.
  • Trustee Thalmann did not answer the question, but tried to change the subject by asking a question of her own.
  • Treasurer Langlois indicated that:

“The Board did not take up this issue.  It would be on video if the Board made a decision.”

  • Supervisor Gonser then stated that it had been discussed at the Budget Workshop. (Note previous comments on the accuracy of that statement.)
  • Here is a short video segment from the July 15th Joint meeting:

At the August 13 Township Board Meeting, Supervisor Gonser states:

“Process is Everything”

It appears that Supervisor Gonser only follows the Process when it suits his desires.

  • If the decision to authorize the April 1 memo did occur with Board concurrence, as Trustee Bailey indicated in his April 5th email and Supervisor Gonser indicated in his April 4th email, the Board violated the Open Meetings Act.
  • If the decision to authorize the April 1 memo was a unilateral decision by Supervisor Gonser, it was outside any process for such action to have been taken.  Gonser violated the trust that the citizens have placed in his hands.
  • In either case, THE CORRECT PROCESS WAS NOT FOLLOWED!

Here is the documentation for the above:

Pre April 1 correspondance on Land Preservation takeover

Post April 1 correspondance on Land Preservation takeover

ALL OF THIS FROM A GROUP THAT RAN ON A PLATFORM OF TRANSPARENCY!

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township?  The Open Meetings Act is intended to make sure our leaders do not make ‘behind the scenes’ decisions that affect us.  Unilateral decisions can be made in a ‘dictatorship’ (using another resident’s phrase), but have no place in our form of government.

Do you think that Supervisor Gonser made his decision with input from others on the Board as both he and Trustee Bailey indicated?

Do you agree with Supervisor Gonser’s statement that our elected officials should not share decisions and strategies until “after they have come to fruition”?

Do you think that Supervisor Gonser has the right to make unilateral decisions that have significant impact on the Township without input from others on the Board and the citizens?

Do you think Trustee Bailey’s April 5th email comment is consistent with his July 15th comment?

Do you agree with Treasurer Langlois’ concern over having an ‘inter office communication’ shared with the public, even though it authorizes a significant change in how the Board and the Parks Commission operate?

Do you think an Open Meetings Act violation occurred?

Is Supervisor Gonser’s leadership style taking us closer to the vision he himself fears is being driven by a United Nations conspiracy called “Agenda 21”? (See Supervisor’s Views – UN Global Conspiracy).
Watch the Video.

RIchard Michalski