Tag Archives: Parks Commission

Do Ann Marie Rogers, Roger Schmidt and Beth Markel, and their ‘slate’, deserve your votes for Parks Commissioners?

Your vote for these candidates will help “Preserve our Parks for the Next Generation”

The seven positions for Oakland Township’s Parks and Recreation Commission will be on the August 2nd ballot. Since none of the longstanding members of the Commission are running for re-election, a group of concerned citizens have come together to build upon what those Commissioners and their predecessors have accomplished. The seven candidates call their group the “Park Protectors”. This group is endorsed by the four longest standing current members of the Parks Commission – Colleen Barkham, David Mackley, Alice Tomboulian and Joe Perruzi.

Oakland Township is recognized for the great park system that has been created in our community. It is the envy of many surrounding communities. The seven candidates who are part of the “Parks Protectors” are dedicated to ‘Preserving our Parks for the Next Generation’. As one candidate has stated, he will work to have the Park system “grow and flourish while making the past practice a future reality”.

The seven candidates are:

Emily Barkham

Craig Blust

Dan Bukowski

Colin Choi

Cathy Rooney

Daniel Simon

Hank Van Agen

You can learn much more about each of these candidates by visiting the ‘Park Protectors’ website at:

www.parkprotectors.org

Here is a copy of their campaign literature (click on images to enlarge):

Remember to vote on August 2nd!

Please share this information with your friends and neighbors!

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township? Since 2012, the Parks Commission has been plagued with internal divisiveness. Two current members, who are running for re-election, as well as a third person who is running for the commission, have been the source of this divisiveness. Many of their actions have been reported on this website.

If you like what you have seen in our park system, on August 2nd please consider voting for the seven candidates who are endorsed by the retiring commissioners you know and trust.

Remember to vote on August 2nd, since the seven positions will be decided at that election since their are no Democratic candidates on the August or November ballots.

Richard Michalski

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

6 Replies

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

Further insight into the Agenda 21 conspiracy thinking of some of our elected officials

5 Replies

At the May 13, 2015 Oakland Township Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) meeting, there was a proposal to have the Oakland Township PRC become part of the Oakland County Trails, Water and Land Alliance. Parks Commissioner Ann Marie Rogers expressed her concern that this is part of an ‘overreach’ plan by the Environmental Protection Agency. During public comment a citizen, who is a self proclaimed ‘authority on Agenda 21’, indicated that this was part of the Agenda 21 conspiracy and a communist plan by the Federal Government to take over control of our land.

The citizen’s comments provide some insight into the thinking of those that believe there is a conspiracy based on the international agreement called Agenda 21. As previously reported, based on comments he made at an Oakland Township Republican Precinct delegate meeting on January 20 , 2014, Supervisor Gonser is a believer in this conspiracy. Here is a link to the posting on his comments:

Supervisor Gonser on Agenda 21

The PRC approved joining the Oakland County Trails, Water and Land alliance in a 5 to 2 vote. Commissioner Rogers and Schmidt were the dissenting votes.

Here is some additional information on this subject:

Oakland County Trails, Water and Land Alliance’s (TWLA) stated purpose is:

To become an informed, coordinated, collaborative body that supports initiatives related to Oakland County’s Green Infrastructure Network.

Share information and coordinate efforts at quarterly TWLA meetings

Pursue the establishment of partnerships in both the public and private sectors

Promote TWLA through the Oak Routes Map, Fall Celebration, Green Infrastructure Vision, and other events and marketing materials

Provide support to TWLA partner organizations for grants and other funding opportunities

Oakland County’s Green Infrastructure Network is part of an initiative of L. Brooks Patterson, and has for its vision statement:

Enhancing recreational opportunities

Protecting important natural habitat

Increasing access to natural land and water resources

Developing parks, trails, and recreational facilities

Oakland Township has participated in many events that the Alliance has sponsored through the years.
There are almost 40 communities and organizations that are part of this alliance – including Rochester Hills, Addison Township, Springfield Township and many others
There are no fees or obligations associated with joining this alliance
The alliance has provided support to Oakland Township for grant applications
The Township can withdraw from the alliance at any time without any negative consequences
The vision of the alliance is consistent with the desires of the Parks and Recreation Commission.

Both Commissioner Ann Marie Rogers and Arlene Allen, the self proclaimed ‘authority on Agenda 21’, feel that this alliance is part of a conspiracy to take away the liberty of our citizens and community. They claim their position is supported by the Republican Party. Based on previous comments by Supervisor Gonser, he appears to also believe in this conspiracy theory.

Here is a video of the proceedings at the May 13th meeting. This is a ‘must watch’ video to get an understanding of what these conspiracy theorist think.

Here is a link to a Glenn Beck trailer providing insight into what these conspiracy theorist see as our future under Agenda 21.

The conspiracy theorist’s vision of our future

If you want to learn more about Gonser’s position on Agenda 21, please visit the following link and watch the video of the comments from Jim Foulkrod, former Township Trustee, Zoning Board of Appeals member and Planning Commission member:

What does Agenda 21 have to do with Oakland Township?

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township? The people that believe there is an Agenda 21 conspiracy are a sub group of the ‘Tea Party’ Republicans. It now appears that Parks Commissioners Ann Marie Rogers and Roger Schmidt, as well as Supervisor Gonser, subscribe to that conspiracy theorist thinking.

The 2012 Republican Platform did take a position in not supporting the 1992 Agenda 21 agreement. This position was driven by the Tea Party members of the Party. I do not believe that the majority of Oakland Township citizens subscribe to this fanatical conspiratorial way of thinking, yet some of our elected officials do. The 2016 elections will give our community an opportunity to elect officials that are not ‘extremist’ or paranoid in their thinking.

Richard Michalski

Good news and bad news for Oakland Township?

8 Replies

THE GOOD NEWS – At the January 13, 2015 Oakland Township Board meeting a positive step was taken in improving the relationship between the Township Board and the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC). There was an agreement made regarding the employment status and unionization efforts of PRC employees.

THE BAD NEWS – Contrary to what Supervisor Gonser stated, Trustee Bailey confirmed that unionization efforts by the Parks Commission employees occurred after the current Board was elected. Unionization efforts are typically initiated by employees to protect themselves from administrative’ actions and decisions. The Parks Commission employees are considering joining a union. The Fire Fighters joined a union after the current Board came into office.

At the January 13, 2015 Oakland Township Board meeting, the Township Board agreed to a Tentative Settlement Agreement between the Oakland Township Board, the Oakland Township Parks and Recreation Commission and the Michigan AFSCME Council 25, AFL-CIO. This agreement states that the Township Parks and Recreation Commission employees are co-employed by the Parks and Recreation Commission as well as the Township. It states that both parties (PRC and Township) ‘have the right to participate in bargaining with the proposed bargaining unit’.

This tentative agreement was negotiated as a result of a December 16, 2014 State of Michigan Employment Relations Commission Hearing. This Tenatative agreement was approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission at their December 17, 2014 meeting after the hearing.

The issue of who the Parks and Recreation employees ‘work for’ has been a contentious issue ever since the current Board of Trustees came into office in 2012. Several members of the Board had taken the position that the PRC employees were under their control, not the Parks and Recreation Commission. The issue had escalated to the point where legal action had been taken between the Board and the PRC. Taxpayer money has been spent on arriving at the Tentative Agreement.

At the January 13th Board meeting, Supervisor Gonser stated that the unionization efforts by Township Staff was started under the former Board (the Fire Department is now unionized and the PRC employees are considering joining a union). Trustee Michael Bailey corrected Supervisor Gonser indicating that the unionization efforts were started after this Board was elected.

Here is Gonser’s statement:

“Both the unionization of the Fire Department, and unionization of the Parks Department began under the previous administration, so that was already in place when this Board took office. It has simply progressed from there to this point.”

One of Oakland Township citizens questioned Gonser’s choice of words asking:

“Is that a technical point? Are you saying before you “took office”, but was it after you were elected? Because I had understood, or heard, that there was (employee) fear based on (new Board member) positions taken.”

Gonser replied by stating:

” I don’t know if I can draw that distinction, but I do know it took place before this board took office.”

Trustee Bailey (a Trustee of the Board under the previous administration) responded by saying:

“I do not recall any discussion about unionization of Parks Commission during our tenure on previous Board.

As far as the Fire Department unionization, there were preliminary discussions, but no real action taken until after this Board came on board.”

Here is a video of that exchange:

There have been many issues between the Board and the PRC since the Board came into power in 2012. The most egregious was Terry Gonser’s April 1, 2014 memo, sent by former Superintendant James Creech, attempting to take control of the Land Preservation fund from the PRC. Other documented issues are referenced here:

Board vs. Parks issues

Here is a copy of the agreement.

Tentative Settlement Agreement

Unionization efforts were discussed on this website in July of 2013

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township? The approval of the agreement can be construed as a ‘bury the hatchet’ action by both the Township Board and the PRC. Hopefully future actions the Board takes will keep the positive direction taken in this first step.

The only reason we were dealing with this issue is because of the attacks that Supervisor Gonser, and several other members of the Board, have taken against the Parks and Recreation Commission and employees. Employees seek union protection when they fear actions that their ‘management’ may take.

The potential unionization of Township employees does not benefit the Township or ultimately the employees if a good working relationship with ‘administration’ can be maintained.

Supervisor Gonser’s denial that unionization efforts started when this Board was elected in 2012 is another example of him trying to distance himself from the consequences of his actions.

Hopefully the majority of the Board will continue to improve the relationship with the PRC and eliminate any further legal expense associated with asking the court system to resolve issues.

Richard Michalski

Supervisor Gonser knew about Gas Pipeline proposal but refused to inform the Park Commission

1 Reply

Supervisor Gonser knew about a proposed gas pipeline through Oakand Township more than a month before the Parks and Recreation Commission was informed that the pipeline was proposed to go through one of our Parks. Gonser chose not to inform the Parks Commission about this project. He later approved the survey work on the park land even though he knew the Parks Commission had not approved the request.

As reported previously on this website, Vector Pipeline, a representative of DTE, met with the Oakland Township Parks and Recreation Commission on November 12, 2014 to request approval from the Parks Commission to proceed with a survey through Draper Twin Lakes Park to potentially install a 42 inch diameter gas line. This proposed path is an optional path Vector Pipeline wanted to consider rather than using an existing right of way adjacent to the Park property. There was no good reason given for why Vector Pipeline preferred to use the parkland. This line would traverse our entire Township. The Parks Commission did not grant approval to proceed with the survey work. However, a few days after the meeting, a survey company was seen surveying the parkland. Upon investigation, it was discovered that Supervisor Gonser had given approval to survey the land without the Parks Commission’s knowledge or approval.

Information obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) indicates that Supervisor Gonser met with DTE, knew about the proposal, had a map of the proposed path, and sent a letter to the Board members informing them of project more than a month (October 2 and 3) before the Parks Commission meeting. Supervisor Gonser apparently did not feel it necessary to inform the Parks Commission since they were not included on his email.

Gonser’s letter also included a draft letter that Vector Pipeline planned to send to all affected landowners prior to doing any surveying. The Parks Commission never received a copy of the letter. Gonser must have felt that since he had seen the letter, he felt it acceptable to approve the survey request even though he knew the Parks Commission had not approved it.

A discussion of Gonser’s actions on this issue is on the agenda for the January 13 BOT meeting. Please come to the meeting or watch the discussion on your computer or TV.

Here are the documents obtained through the FOIA process:

Gonser’s prior knowledge of pipeline project

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township? The Township Board, and particularly Supervisor Gonser, has had a number of confrontations with the Parks and Recreation Commission. Some of these confrontations have escalated to formal legal proceedings. Gonser’s obvious “in your face” decision to approve the survey work without having shared his prior knowledge of the project is yet another one of his ‘attacks’ on the Parks Commission. He approved the request without having valid reasons given for why the existing right of ways could not be used. His underhanded withholding of information from the Parks Commission is yet another example of his leadership style and ethics.

He claims to spend 50 to 60 hours per week on Township work, yet he could not take 30 seconds and include the Parks Commission on distribution on his October 3, 2014 email?

RIchard Michalski

We need your help! Supervisor Gonser does it again!

9 Replies

If you have been following the information we have been sharing regarding the behavior of Supervisor Gonser, the information included in this post will come as no surprise to you. However, it has now reached the point where the citizens of Oakland Township need to express their opinions on his inappropriate, unauthorized decisions.

The most recent incident involves a decision he made on the possible use of park land. His action is consistent with his desire to control the, separately elected, Parks Commission.

After reading this, if you find his behavior unacceptable and are concerned about the impact of this pipeline on our park, we invite you to the December 9th Oakland Township Board meeting at 7 PM and let the Board know your position. It is not officially on the agenda, but some Board members may add it. If it is not placed on the agenda, you will still be able to provide your input during the ‘citizen comments’ section of the meeting.

Here is the background on this issue:

At the November 12, 2014 Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) meeting, Chris Hawthorne, an employee of EnSite who represents Vector Pipeline, gave a presentation describing a proposal to install a 42 inch diameter high pressure gas line (up to 1000 psi) through our Township.
This pipeline is intended to transmit natural gas from Illinois, through Indiana and to Canada.
95% of the pipeline route through the state is intended to follow an existing pipeline and utilize the currently approved rights-of-way (ROW’s already going through our Township).
Vector Pipeline wants to deviate from the existing right-of-way in one area of our Township by putting the pipeline through Draper Twin Lakes Park.
The stated reason for the deviation was that installing the pipe through the existing right-of-way was “extremely tight”.
They were asking permission from the Parks Commission to survey the land to determine the feasibility of routing the pipeline through the park.
During questioning, the representative stated that all Supervisors in the affected communities had previously been contacted regarding this project.
The Parks Commission members were not aware of any previous communication on this issue.
When PRC chairman Zale asked if any Commission members would like to make a motion to approve the request, there was silence. As a result, the request was denied.
The Parks Commission did not approve the request on the basis that the park land has deed restrictions that prevent the pipeline from going through it.
A few days later, parks personnel observed individuals from EnSite USA surveying Draper Twin Lakes Park.
Upon further investigation, Mr. Harthorne indicated that after he did not receive permission to perform the survey from the PRC, he contacted Supervisor Gonser, and Supervisor Gonser gave him permission to do the requested work.

Here is a copy of the map showing the proposed path for the pipeline through Oakland and Macomb Counties.

Click on the map to see a larger version of it.

Here is a copy of the map showing the proposed route for the pipeline through the Draper Twin Lakes park: (The yellow line is the existing pipeline and approved ROW. The red line is the proposed path through the park.)

Click on the map to see a larger version of it.

Here is a video showing the typical impact of the installation of this type of gas line:

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township? Supervisor Gonser did not have the authority to authorize the surveying work. He appears to not be concerned about the impact of a gas pipeline through our Parks.

Gonser unilaterally made this decision, totally disregarding the PRC’s stance on this matter. The park land is the PRC’s responsibility, not the Supervisor’s. He did not have any public communication on this matter with other Township Board or PRC members.

His lack of knowledge regarding the impact gas lines can have in a community is exemplified by his total disregard for the location of a gas line near his home. As part of an settlement agreement in a personal protection order (PPO) request made by his neighbor against him, he agreed to move a tree that he planted on his neighbor’s property. When Gonser had a company move the tree, a gas line was ruptured. He did not utilize ‘mis-dig’ to locate the line prior to attempting to move the tree.

It appears that when Gonser wants to get something done, he does not consider the correct process to be followed, or the potential consequences of his actions.

Gonser’s personal experience with gas lines

This recent action by our Supervisor is yet another example of his arrogant, authoritarian style. Please click on the words “Supervisor Gonser” in the right portion of this webpage to scroll through and read the many previous posts regarding Supervisor Gonser’s actions.

If you find his behavior unacceptable or are concerned about he impact of the pipeline on our park land, please attend the December 9 Board meeting, and express your displeasure with his actions and decision.

Richard Michalski

Park’s Commission Treasurer Roger Schmidt violates his oath of office

3 Replies

At the February 25, 2013 Oakland Township Board meeting, Parks and Recreation Commission Treasurer Roger Schmidt complained about how he and the other newly elected commissioners were constantly being outvoted. He went on to accuse the Parks Commission for using the Land Preservation Fund as a ‘slush fund’. At the March 12 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, he tried to explain his ‘slush fund’ comments. He concluded by saying:

“There are some things I’m sure that if the residents knew it was being used for they wouldn’t approve of that.”

Treasurer Schmidt never gave supporting facts for his accusations.

As the Treasurer of the Parks Commission, it is his responsibility, along with the other members of the Parks Commission, to make sure the funds are used properly. By his admission that he believes the fund is not being used properly, and has never identified the “things” he infers, he has failed to follow his oath of office. He had challenged the spending of $250 for the taxidermy of an owl from the land preservation fund, but he challenged it AFTER he had already approved it! The use of fund money for that project had been explained and justified. His actions (or inactions if his allegations are true) are grounds for a recall. His behavior has been a dereliction of duties.

Why would an elected official make these accusations without providing the facts to support them? He and others have filed a complaint against other Commission members that Open Meeting Act violations may have occurred. That issue surely will be sorted out in the legal system. He accuses the other Commission members of ‘attacking our character’, again without providing factual examples. His unsubstantiated accusations are outside the bounds of what Oakland Township citizens should find acceptable.

Here are videos of his comments from the two meetings mentioned above.

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township? The Treasurer of an elected Board has the legal responsibility to challenge anything he/she finds inappropriate regarding expenditures. To make accusatory comments, without the supporting facts, is inappropriate, and rapidly becoming the ‘new reality’ in Oakland Township. Please get involved in making sure our elected officials perform their duties and not make false accusations.

Richard Michalski

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:

The first represents a potential abuse of power by either Supervisor Gonser or the Township’s administrative staff.
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

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

3 Replies

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

Oakland Township Watchers

Eyes on our new government

Tag Archives: Parks Commission

Do Ann Marie Rogers, Roger Schmidt and Beth Markel, and their ‘slate’, deserve your votes for Parks Commissioners?

Your vote for these candidates will help “Preserve our Parks for the Next Generation”

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

Further insight into the Agenda 21 conspiracy thinking of some of our elected officials

Good news and bad news for Oakland Township?

Supervisor Gonser knew about Gas Pipeline proposal but refused to inform the Park Commission

We need your help! Supervisor Gonser does it again!

Park’s Commission Treasurer Roger Schmidt violates his oath of office

Abuse of Power and a Misappropriation of funds?

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