Tag Archives: Misappropriation of funds

Township subsidizing developers? Board identifies accounting error – reduces retainer fees for legal services in Oakland Township – still many unanswered questions

2 Replies

At the July 28, 2015 Oakland Township Board meeting, the Board revised the contract with the Township’s legal firm, Giarmarco, Mullins and Horton P. C.  The monthly retainer fee was reduced by $750.  Treasurer Langlois stated the reduction was done for a ‘more proper’ allocation of expenses regarding legal services.  Trustee Bailey indicated that there were some legal service fees that were put ‘erroneously’ into the General fund that should have been billed to ‘other people’. 

The change to the contract is welcomed. As previously reported on this website, the legal service fees for our Township have almost doubled since the new Board was elected in 2012.  This recently discovered error explains a portion of the reason for the higher expenditure, but does raise several questions regarding whether the Township has been subsidizing developers, and whether we can retroactively recover those costs.

The Board also missed an opportunity to clarify an issue that had been repeated raised by former Trustee Thalmann regarding ‘double coverage’ for legal services for the Parks and Recreation Commission.

Treasurer Langlois proposed the change in the contract to:

“facilitate a more proper allocation of the expenses regarding the legal services to the accounts and funds that make use of those.”

Trustee Bailey stated:

“One of the advantages of what you are proposing is that we’ll be billing appropriately the people that should be billed for these legal services. Whereas before, they were kind of all,  much of them, or some of them at least were put into the General Fund erroneously or not correctly, and were funded by our General Fund.”

The author of this post raised several questions at the meeting.  They are restated here:

  • Have all the charges that should have been charged to the developer’s escrow funds been identified?
  • If they have been identified, have they been correctly charged to those accounts?
  • If they have not been identified, will they be identified?
  • If not, have the Township citizens essentially been subsidizing the developers?
  • Are there other consultant fees, beyond the legal fees, that have improperly been charged to the Township?

The Board did not respond to any of the questions raised.

The author also pointed out a missed opportunity to clarify an issue regarding the legal fees for the Parks and Recreation Commission.

Former Trustee Thalmann repeatedly complained that the legal retainer fee includes legal support for the Park’s Commission, but that the Parks Commission continues to use Joppich’s firm resulting in double payment for services.  The Board members never corrected her repeated claims. As a result, the citizens were left to believe that the monthly retainer fee WAS intended to cover the Parks Commission.

Based on that assumption, an analysis was undertaken to look at the historical expense for legal fees for the Parks and Recreation Commission prior to the Board changing law firms.

The six year average for Parks and Recreation legal services, prior to this Board taking office, was approximately $5,000 per year. As a result, the monthly retainer fee with Giarmarco, Mullens & Horton, P.C. should be further reduced by $416 per month, or $5,000 for the year, to reflect that they are not providing Park’s Commission legal support.

Once again, the Board refused to respond to the question and suggestion.

Here is a video of Treasurer Langlois and Trustee Bailey’s comments at the meeting.

 

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township?  As previously reported, the legal expense for our Township has almost doubled since the current Board took office.  The following graph shows this historical and projected trend.

Oakland Township Legal expense

(click on graph to enlarge)

The recent discovery, that we have not been charging developer’s escrow funds for legal services, is a direct result of the inquiries raised on this website.  The Board needs to address the questions raised in THIS posting, so the citizens understand how much we may have subsidized developers and if the fees can retroactively be recovered. They also need to clarify whether the retainer fee is intended to cover Parks and Recreation legal support, as had previously been claimed by former Trustee Thalmann, and not challenged by the Board.

There are a number of other financial ‘transparency’ issues that will be brought up in later posts.  The Board still needs to make a case for why legal service fees have almost doubled during their tenure.

Here are some previous posts on this subject:

Attorney bills out of control in Oakland Township?

July 14th UPDATE: Attorney bills out of control in Oakland Township? Accounting error found!

 

Richard Michalski

Township “administration” authorizes paying for luncheon tickets – against wishes of several Board members

3 Replies

At the July 8th Board meeting, it became known that the Township ‘administration’ made a decision to have the Township purchase 6 tickets to a luncheon that was to honor Supervisor Gonser for completing a program with the Chamber of Commerce.  This decision violated a previous Township practice and “The Principles of Township Governance” that was approved in June of 2013.  The decision was made even after concerns for purchasing these tickets were raised by several Board members. 

At the June 10, 2014 Township Board meeting, Treasurer Langlois requested that a bill not be paid, since she thought it inappropriate for the Township to pay it.  The bill was for $150 to cover 6 people attending a Rochester Chamber of Commerce recognition luncheon for completing some program.  One of the honorees was Supervisor Gonser.

After the June 10th meeting, Treasurer Langlois discovered that the bill had been paid prior to the meeting. This payment not only violated the policy of not paying bills without Board approval (other than those that have defined payment dates such as utility bills), but the Township practice for participants to pay for their own tickets to such events, and the “Principles of Township Governance”.

Treasurer Langlois indicated that when she received an email indicating that tickets would be purchased by the Township, she questioned the appropriateness of doing so.  Trustee Buxar responded in a similar manner.

Treasurer Langlois indicated that “the administration” had approved paying for 6 tickets, even though it had been against previous Township practices.  Several Board members and staff members attended the banquet thinking that they would not have to pay for the tickets.

Incredibly, Clerk Reilly said that when she was initially approached on attending the luncheon, she indicated she would not attend if she had to pay.  When she found out that the Township WOULD PAY for the tickets, she decided to attend.  As the Township Clerk, she also approved the payment of the $150 bill prior to the June 10th Board meeting, violating the approved payment policy.  She indicated that she had not repaid the Township, and did not offer to do so.

Supervisor Gonser indicated that two “attendees” had repaid the Township for the tickets, but did not disclose who attended or paid the Township back.  He indicated that the expense to the Township was “only” $100″, and “it was not the end of the world!”.

Gonser went on to say that this incident was due to a “misunderstanding and a lack of a policy”, even though several Board members indicated that this was against the previous practice of the Township.

The Board ultimately approved the payment by a 5 to 2 vote.  Treasurer Langlois and Trustee Buxar were the dissenting votes.

Here are portions of the July 8th Board meeting where this was discussed:

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township?  This is yet another example of Supervisor Gonser’s leadership style. The ‘administration’ of our Township consists of Supervisor Gonser, Treasurer Langlois, Clerk Reilly and township manager Ann Capela.  The Treasurer indicated that she did not support the decision. The Clerk indicated she did not make the decision. In a phone call with our Township manager, Ann Capela indicated that Gonser had made the request and she approved it since she thought it was appropriate.  Gonser made this request in spite of the feedback given by Treasurer Langlois and the past Township practice.  Gonser did not have the courage to acknowledge his actions in public.  Gonser’s actions, as well as Clerk Reilly’s, violate the “Principles of Township Governance Policy” approved in June of 2013. We now know why, even though they voted to approve the policy in June of 2013, they refused to sign it!

Principles of Township Governance Excellence document

Richard Michalski

Board refuses to sign “Principles of Township Governance Excellence” Pledge

“State of Township” or “Self aggrandizement”?  You decide!

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

2 Replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SO WHO IS REALLY THE COWARD?

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

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

Richard Michalski

Here are the videos confirming the above statements.

Abuse of Power and a Misappropriation of funds?

1 Reply

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

There are TWO issues with this situation:

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the background on this issue:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richard Michalski