Tag Archives: Open meetings Act

Park’s Commissioner Roger Schmidt admits ‘sabotaging’ subcommittee meeting

6 Replies

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

At the April 13, 2016 Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) meeting, Parks Commissioner Roger Schmidt admitted that he attended a PRC subcommittee meeting with the intent that the meeting would be terminated.  The official subcommittee members included Alice Tombulian, Ann Marie Rogers and Joe Peruzzi.  

Roger Schmidt disregarded previous input from the Parks and Recreation attorney, who stated subcommittee meetings should not have more than three commissioners attend because it could be considered a violation of the Open Meetings Act, since a quorum of the PRC would be present.  The Township Board’s attorney agreed with the PRC attorney’s assessment.  

Roger Schmidt’s attendance at the subcommittee meeting did result in the meeting being terminated.  As a result, any work the subcommittee was attempting to accomplish on a dog park for our Township had stopped.  Ironically, in the past, Roger Schmidt has supported having a dog park facility in one of our Township Parks.  

Prior to the February 10, 2016 PRC meeting, Chairman Zale asked for volunteers for the dog park subcommittee.  Commissioner Schmidt did not respond.  The other three members did respond, and were appointed to the subcommittee.   Roger Schmidt was upset that he was not selected as a subcommittee member and voted against the subcommittee, as did Commissioner Ann Marie Rogers. 

Oakland Township’s Parks and Recreation Commission has been considering establishing a dog park in one of our Township parks.  Alice Tombulian was an advocate for this prior to Roger Schmidt and Ann Marie Rogers joining the PRC in 2012.  The PRC established the subcommittee mentioned above to recommend in which Township park a dog park would make the most sense.  They were to review background dog park information, including work that had been done by a citizen ‘ad hoc dog park committee’.  That citizen group had previously recommended Bear Creek Nature Park.  Ann Marie Rogers was part of the ‘ad hoc’ group.  The Bear Creek proposal had been rejected by the PRC in a 5 to 2 vote for a number of reasons. Ann Marie Rogers and Roger Schmidt wanted to proceed with the Bear Creek proposal as submitted by the citizen ‘ad hoc’ group.

The first subcommittee meeting was held on March 16th.  The meeting began with Joe Peruzzi, Alice Tombulian and Ann Marie Rogers attending. The meeting was open to the public.   When Roger Schmidt walked in, Chairperson Peruzzi terminated the meeting based on advice from the PRC attorney.  The Township Board’s Attorney agreed with that decision.

At the April 13, 2016 PRC meeting, Joe Peruzzi gave a brief description of the March 16th meeting, and why it was terminated.

Ann Marie Rogers stated:

“Commissioner Schmidt attended this dog park ‘charade’ committee as a private citizen.  This Commission cannot take away his rights as a resident.

The fact that we even had this meeting is the first place, I believe, was a ‘sham and a charade’.  every penny was removed from the Budget.”

To which Parks and Recreation Treasurer Roger Schmidt agreed and said:

“Yes!”

Parks and Recreation Manager, Mindy Milos-Dale, corrected Ann Marie and Treasurer Schmidt pointing out that there was $25,000 in the budget for the dog park work.

Commissioner Roger Schmidt stated:

“Another reason I went there (the meeting) was this is a waste of everybody’s time and BY GOING THERE, I KNEW THAT THEY WOULD GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE MEETING DOWN, because that should have been done.  It (the meeting) shouldn’t have been done in the first place.”

During citizen comments, 2016 Parks and Recreation candidate, Beth Markel, defended the presence of Roger Schmidt at the meeting, even though it violated the recommendation of two Township attorneys.

Here is a video of comments made at the April 13th meeting:

 

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township?  Since the current Parks and Recreation Commission members were elected in 2012, there has been considerable conflict on the Commission.  Ann Marie Rogers, Roger Schmidt and 2016 PRC candidate Beth Markel filed a complaint accusing other Commissioners of violating the Open Meeting’s Act.  The Court dismissed their charges.  They are appealing the Court’s decision.

Roger Schmidt’s admission that he intentionally attended the meeting to cause it to be terminated speaks to the disruptive approach both he and Ann Marie Rogers have taken in dealing with Parks and Recreation issues over the past few years.  Last year the two of them got up and left a meeting in anger before the meeting was over. Roger’s lack of understanding that there is $25,000 in the budget for a dog park indicates that he is not qualified to be the Treasurer for the PRC.

The parks in Oakland Township are the envy of many surrounding communities. These parks are the result of years of cooperative and creative work by Parks and Recreation Commissioners.  We currently have two Commissioners that appear to want to change the historically non-political nature of the Commission using divisive actions.  Oakland Township deserves better than the childish and vindictive behavior (like storming out of the January 14, 2015 PRC meeting , and subverting the efforts of the subcommittee) when things do not go their way.

We will have an opportunity later this year to elect an entirely new Parks and Recreation Commission.  Our votes will determine the future direction of our parks.  We can elect a group of people that will work together respectful of one another, or continue to have the disruptive behavior that has been present for the last 3+ years.  Your votes will have in impact on our Township’s future. Stay tuned for more information on the Parks and Recreation candidates on this website.

Richard Michalski

 

 

 

Another Open Meeting violation by Oakland Township Board or Gonser’s ‘puppet’ speaking?

1 Reply

The August 12 Oakland Township Board meeting had an agenda item to discuss a Request for Proposal (RFP) for planning services.  Due to the length of that meeting, that agenda item was never discussed.  It was tabled until the September meeting.  The Supervisor never requested any input on this topic from the Planning Commission, even though they could be significantly impacted by the Board’s decision.

At the September 2, 2014 Planning Commission meeting, Trustee Giannangeli failed to bring up this issue for discussion.  However, Chairman James Carter added it to the agenda based on a request from another Board member.  During the discussion, Giannangeli indicated that the Township Board wanted to send out a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Planning Consultant services in Oakland Township.  He went on to say that they may want two RFP’S.  One for the Planning consulting services for developing the Master Plan, and yet another one for the ongoing Planning Commission support services.  This topic had never been discussed in an Open Meeting with the Township Board, yet Giannangeli presented it as a request from the Board.  

Where is Trustee Giannangeli getting this direction?  If it is coming from the Board, it is a violation of the Open Meetings Act since it was not discussed in an open meeting.  If it is coming from Supervisor Gonser, then Gonser is usurping the authority of the entire Board.  In either case, John Giannangeli’s comments were inappropriate.

Here is a video of this discussion at the September 2 Planning Commission meeting:

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township?  If the direction Giannangeli said DID come from the Township Board, it was a clear violation of the Open Meetings Act.  If the direction Giannangeli stated as coming from the Board really was just a conversation Giannangeli and Gonser had, it is an example of how Gonser is using Giannangeli as his ‘puppet’ on the Planning Commission.  This is not the first time Gonser has attempted to influence the Planning Commission by having personal conversations with his ‘appointees’.  It was previously reported on this website how Gonser used Ron Hein, another one of his appointments, to influence the strategic direction of the Planning Commission.

As Gonser continues to ‘purge’ the various board, commission, consultant members in Oakland Township, history has already demonstrated that his replacements look to Gonser for ‘direction’.  Is that the type of leadership and community the citizens of Oakland Township want?

Richard Michalski

Here is a related previous post:

Supervisor Gonser attempts to influence Planning Commission’s Master Plan

Richard Michalski

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

4 Replies

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

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

2 Replies

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

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

5 Replies

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

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

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

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

The Open Meetings Act requires that:

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

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

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

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

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

Jim Foulkrod

A “behind the curtains” view of Oakland Township

3 Replies

A recent recording of a conversation between the Township Clerk and a Trustee gives some insight into how our Township Board continues to operate “behind the curtain” of secrecy.

The Oakland County Sheriff’s Department is investigating whether our Township Board’s recent actions on the Mill Race Project violated the Open Meetings Act.

Details on both of these topics are included in this post.

DECEMBER 10TH COMMENTS PRIOR TO BOARD MEETING

Prior to the December 10 Oakland Township Board meeting,  a discussion between Clerk Reilly and Trustee McKay was recorded and posted on the Township website. Trustee McKay expresses concern over the lack of content in the Closed Session minutes.  She is familiar with what the previous Board and Township Attorney had approved.  This change in record keeping has been approved by our new Attorney as stated by Clerk Reilly in the video.  Here is the video of that conversation:

This recorded conversation gives some insight into how our new Board operates and gives them the cover of secrecy for behind the scenes decisions.  The following incident supports that statement.  It is currently part of an investigation by the Oakland County Sheriff’s Department into alleged Open Meeting Act violations by our Board.

POSSIBLE OPEN MEETING ACT VIOLATION

A recent decision by our Board to move the Engineering work for the Mill Race from Wade Trim to ECT began during discussions that occurred in a September 24th Closed Session. The decision to have Wade Trim share Engineering data and possibly engage ECT on the Mill Race project was not discussed or voted on in public.  The Supervisor gave direction to the Superintendent without official Board approval after the September 24th Closed Session meeting.

The evidence of these assertions occurred at the October 8th Board meeting.  Here is a video of excerpts of the October 8th Board meeting:

In the October 8th meeting:

  • Trustee Keyes points out that she objected to the proceedings that were taking place at the September 24th Closed Session meeting, since they were not what was stated on the posted agenda. September 24, 2013 Special Meeting Notice
  • Trustee Keyes indicates that she refused to sign the minutes of that Special Meeting, because the minutes did not reflect what actually occurred.
  • Trustee Thalmann confirms that a decision had been made to have Wade Trim share data.  She realized later that her statement was a violation of the OMA, and tries to explain how a decision had not been made.

This is yet another example of an Open Meeting Act violation by our Board.  Here are the reasons this action violates the Open Meetings Act:

  • The reasons given for having the meeting on the posted agenda were not the same as the discussion that actually occur in the Closed Sessions. September 24, 2013 Special Meeting Notice
  • There was never a vote in open session to authorize the sharing of the data between Wade Trim and ECT.
  • A decision to have Wade Trim ‘share data” with ECT was not disclosed in the Open Meeting after the Closed Session.

One of the reasons Trustee Keyes resigned a few weeks later was because of the pattern of Board behavior that she saw while “behind the curtain”.

It appears that only through a Court decision that Open Meeting Act violations DID occur will our Board recognize that their behavior is illegal and more than the “baseless” actions as claimed by Trustee Thalmann!

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township?  The ongoing disregard by the Board to follow the Open Meetings Act requirements places all of us at risk if we are not allowed to participate in the decisions that affect us.  The Open Meeting Act laws were created to protect citizens from unbridled government behavior.

Richard Michalski

Strong Evidence that an Open Meetings Violation Occurred Nov 20th

1 Reply

In my post yesterday I outlined how it appeared that the Board was likely to commit a violation of the Open Meetings Act when they went into a closed session to review resumes for the Township Superintendent position.  I had planned to speak during ‘citizens comments’ prior to the closed session to try to prevent this from happening by reminding them that The Open Meetings Act  says that:

 “it is permissible to go into closed session To review and consider the contents of an application for employment or appointment to a public office if the candidate requests that the application remain confidential.”

Unfortunately they had changed the agenda so that citizens comments were not allowed before the closed session.  During the rest of the open meeting an audience member commented the Board had received 30 resumes. Treasurer Langois said they had reviewed “many many” resumes in the closed session.  I took the opportunity to give them a “heads-up” about the potential problem during citizens comments near the end of the meeting.

Note that Supervisor Gonser replied “The resumes requested confidentiality under the law.”  I asked if every one requested confidentiality and he replied “I’m not going to say every one because I can’t speak to that.”.

Now the Board understands that  if one or more oversights did occur they have the simple remedy of re-doing their reviews of any resume where the applicant did not request that their application remain confidential in open session.   I hope that they will double check their records and, if they made any mistakes,  they admit them and correct them.

This is not trivial. This part of the Open Meetings Act was enacted so that we could know what our government is doing.  Our Board of Trustees is already facing two legal actions that allege violations of this Michigan statute and they need to  act accordingly

Jim Foulkrod