Tag Archives: Roger Schmidt

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

Leave a reply

Over the past 3+ years, the actions of Parks and Recreation Commissioners Ann Marie Rogers, Roger Schmidt, and candidate Beth Markel, have raised questions in many citizen’s minds as to whether they are appropriate for any elected or appointed positions in our Township.  Their actions have been considered disruptive and counterproductive. Here is a video discussing their many questionable actions over the years.

Here are previous posts and an Oakland Press article that documents the actions mentioned in the video.  Please consider these when making your decisions on the Parks and Recreation Commission candidates.

Former Trustee Thalmann and Current Park’s Commissioner Rogers DID forward “Privileged and Confidential” material!

Parks Commissioner Ann Marie Rogers attempts to defend her behavior

Oakland Press article on Ann Marie Rogers being censured by Oakland Township Parks Commission

Two Parks Commissioners plus Beth Markel file lawsuit against four other Parks Commissioners – Papers served by Board Trustee Thalmann’s husband

Parks Commissioners’ lawsuit against fellow Commission members rejected by Judge for second time

Ann Marie Rogers called a citizen a “whore” and “a little bit worse” at a Board meeting

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

Park’s Commission Treasurer Roger Schmidt accuses Commission of using Land Preservation Fund as ‘slush turn’ with no supporting facts

Ann Marie Rogers and Roger Schmidt storm out of meeting after Ann Marie was removed from Personnel committee

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

Parks candidates Ann Marie Rogers, Roger Schmidt, Beth Markel, James Clark, and Brian Cecilio, as well as Supervisor Gonser, Clerk candidate, Judy Workings, and Trustee candidates Lana Mangiapane, Jason Corey and Jeaneane Landers do not support Parks renewal millage.

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township? The actions and behavior of a community’s leaders are a reflection on the residents of the community, since we elect those individuals.  The previous actions of candidates Ann Marie Rogers, Roger Schmidt and Beth Markel should be considered when you vote this summer for Parks and Recreation Commissioners.

At their “Meet and Greet” event held on June 27, the candidates handed out a flier that indicated their entire ‘slate’ of Parks candidates (Rogers, Schmidt, Markel, Clark, and Cecilio) do not support renewing the Parks millage.  The flier also indicated that Supervisor Gonser, Clerk candidate Judy Workings, and the Trustee candidates Mangiapane, Corey, Ricketts and Landers also do not support renewing the millage.  Please consider their position on Parks when you vote on February 2nd.

If you support our Parks, please consider voting for the following seven Park’s Commission candidates that have been endorsed by the long-standing, award winning, retiring Parks Commissioners.

The seven candidates are:

Emily Barkham
Craig Blust
Dan Bukowski
Colin Choi
Cathy Rooney
Daniel Simon
Hank Van Agen

HOW CAN I REMEMBER WHO TO VOTE FOR WHEN THERE ARE SO MANY NAMES?

Someone suggested the following acronym:

“CARS plus 3 B’s”

C= Choi

A= van Agen

R= Rooney

S= Simon

B= Barkham

B= Blust

B= Bukowski

It works for me, and hopefully for you.  But remember:

  • the ‘C’ is for Choi, not Clark or Cecilio
  • the ‘R’ is for Rooney, not Ann Marie Rogers and
  • the ‘S’ is for Simon, not Roger Schmidt

Best approach, write the names down before you enter the voting booth, or take a picture of your list on your ‘smart phone’, and review the picture in the voting booth.  Do not leave anything in the booth when you leave.

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

www.parkprotectors.org

Richard Michalski

 

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

 

 

 

Do Gonser’s actions suggest he places his political agenda above the needs of the Township?

3 Replies

Supervisor Gonser appears to be placing his own political agenda over the critical needs of the community.  His two planning commission nominees at the August 31, 2015 Special Board meeting do not have the critical skills that members of the Board and the Planning Commission feel are needed.  He also failed to nominate qualified candidates at the September 8, 2015 Board meeting.  He is choosing to ignore individuals with Township planning experience that have applied for the open Planning Commission positions.

Oakland Township’s Planning Commission currently has only five commissioners.  Their combined planning experience level is less than 8 years.  There should be seven members of the commission.  As reported previously, Supervisor Gonser’s two nominees for the vacancies were not acceptable to the other six members of the Township Board.   Neither of his nominees had enough Planning Commission or Township experience to fill the voids created by Gonser’s previous nominees to the Planning Commission.

At the special August 31, 2015 Board meeting, Gonser nominated two individuals who had no experience in Oakland Township Planning, Zoning or other subcommittee events.  The Supervisor had received a total of 5 applications for the open positions well before the August 31st special Board meeting.  Two of the applicants have significant Planning, Zoning, or even Township Trustee experience.  Another applicant has been very involved in Oakland Township activities, and is a member of the Safety Path and Trails subcommittee.  Two of the  three individuals with Township planning, zoning or subcommittee experience live on large parcels in the Township.

Gonser claimed his selections were based on a need to have women on the Planning Commission, and that he wanted to nominate individuals who live on acreage.  Based on Gonser’s stated reasons for his nominations, he did not find the experience of the 5 early applicants to be a compelling reason to justify their nomination.  He therefore solicited applications from the two individuals he nominated at the August 31, 2015 meeting.  Their applications were submitted on August 27th and 28th, just days before the meeting.

During citizen comments, an individual commented that he thought Gonser’s appointments were political.  Gonser responded by saying:

“These are not political appointments.  These are not political people.”

Later in the meeting, Parks and Recreation Commission member Roger Schmidt, husband of Barbara, one of Gonser’s nominees stated:

“When THEY got me in, I came home from my first (Parks and Recreation) meeting, I was not very happy, and my wife said why did one individual dislike me so much to get me on this Commission (Gonser laughs in background).  Well, I did not run to be on this Commission.  I ran to help people get elected on the Board because things were not going well..”

The other nominee Mrs. Landers stated:

” . . . and I think the biggest thing that I did. . . . I did have faith in a lot of people.  I single handedly brought together the first ever big community ‘meet and greet’ that we had that allowed people to meet all the people that are on our Board and everything now.”

Here is a video of portions of the August 31st meeting:

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township?  The Supervisor is disregarding the desires of the other Board members, and the seated Planning Commission members.  They have indicated a need  to have additional Planning experience added to the Commission.  Gonser appears to be placing his own political agenda over the needs of the community, the request from his previously appointed Planning Commissioners and fellow Board members.

His two nominees may not be political people, but clearly based on the comments made at the August 31 meeting, the husband of one of them got involved in politics in order to help Gonser get elected, and the other nominee sponsored a political get together to help Gonser (and others)  get elected.  To Mrs. Landers credit, she did agree to serve on the Safety Path and Trails Subcommittee after it was clear her nomination was not going to be accepted.

The Board and the citizens of the community must continue to place the needs of the community over any political agenda of the Supervisor.  We have qualified individuals ready and willing to serve.  Let’s move forward!

Richard Michalski

P.S.  Next year, we need to remember Roger Schmidt’s statement expressing his lack of interest in being on the Parks and Recreation Commission, and why he really ran for office.  We need to have Parks and Recreation Commission members who are motivated for the right reason.

Township Board does not approve Supervisor Gonser’s Planning Commission nominees!

2 Replies

At the July 31, 2015 Oakland Township Board meeting, the Township Board did not approve either of the two candidates that Supervisor Gonser brought forward for consideration for replacing Janine Saputo and James Carter on the Planning Commission.  Saputo was the Planning Commission’s Secretary, and Carter was the Chairperson of the Commission.  Their terms of appointment are up on September 1.  The Supervisor refused to consider other applicants that the Board members felt were more qualified to meet the immediate needs of the Township.

The Supervisor indicated his selection of the nominees was based on gender diversity, where the nominees lived in the Township, and whether they lived on large parcels of property.

The reason the Board did not approve the two nominees was that the nominees did not have any Township experience in Zoning or Planning.  The Board pointed out that with the previous changes to the Planning Commission, and other Planning personnel changes, the Township’s Planning experience has dropped below a critical level.  One Trustee referred to the loss of expertise as a ‘hemorrhage’.

There were 13 residents that supported the Board’s position and their concern for the level of experience on the Planning Commission.  There were only three individuals that supported Gonser’s position.  One of the three was former Trustee Maureen Thalmann, who recently resigned from the Board.  Another was Parks Commissioner Roger Schmidt, who is involved in a lawsuit against fellow Township’s Parks Commission members, and whose wife happened to be one of Gonser’s nominees.

Supervisor Gonser refused to  nominate other individuals that had applied.  Several of these do have Planning, Zoning, or Township subcommittee experience.

By State Law, only the Supervisor can nominate individuals for the Planning Commission.  The Board has the authority to approve or reject his nominations.

When asked, the Township Attorney could not ‘shed any light’ on what procedurally will occur if the Supervisor does not appoint an acceptable candidate.

Here is a link to an Oakland Press article on the meeting:

Oakland Press article on August 31, 2015 Special BOT meeting

Here is a video of the Board members’ comments:

 

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township?  As previously reported on this website, the level of experience on the Planning Commission is critical to preserving the character of Oakland Township.

The Planning Commission is currently faced with two significant challenges.  One is consideration of a change to our Ordinance to limit oil and gas drilling in our Township to the fullest extent allowed by law, and the other is our new Master Plan.  The Supervisor has already gone on record as not supporting any changes to our Ordinance to control oil and gas drilling in out Township.  He also has repeatedly indicated he wants to change the Master Plan.

The Supervisor clearly wants to change the character of our Township.  Continued vigilance is needed by the citizens to make sure he follows our wishes, not just his own political agenda.

A special thanks goes out to all of the citizens that came to the meeting on August 31.  Your presence and comments give the Board the strength to act on your behalf,

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

Parks Commissioners’ lawsuit against fellow Commission members rejected by Judge for second time

3 Replies

On May 14, 2015, Circuit Court Judge Honorable Leo Bowan rejected, for the second time, the lawsuit filed by Oakland Township Parks Commissioners Ann Marie Rogers and Roger Schmidt, as well as resident Beth Markel, claiming that fellow Parks Commission members had violated the Open Meetings Act.  The original lawsuit was filed in February of 2014.  Hopefully this issue is now behind us.

As previously reported on this website, and in the Oakland Press, Ann Marie Rogers shared ‘Privileged and Confidential’ material with co-plaintiff Beth Markel, former Trustee Thalmann and Supervisor Gonser.  These communications occurred during the litigation period. The matter is being further investigated by the Oakland County Sheriff’s Office for possible legal action against Commissioner Rogers and former Trustee Thalmann.

Here is some background on this lawsuit:

  • On February 28, 2014, two Parks and Recreation members, Ann Marie Rogers and Roger Schmidt, along with Beth Markel, the wife of Zoning Board of Appeals member John Markel, (the plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit claiming that PRC members Dave Mackley, Colleen Barkham, Alice Tomboulian and Joseph Peruzzi (the defendants) violated the Open Meeting act through email correspondence.
  • On December 2, 2014, the defendants filed for ‘summary disposition’ of the case.
  • On December 3, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a cross motion for ‘summary disposition’.
  • On February 13, 2015, Circuit Court Judge Honorable Leo Bowan granted the defendants request for summary disposition and dismissed the case. He also dismissed the plaintiff’s request for cross summary disposition as “moot”.

Here is a copy of the February 13, 2015 legal ruling for the lawsuit:

20150213_opinion_fld_ord-grnt_dft_mtn_sd_100867059

  • On March 4, 2014, the plaintiffs made a motion for reconsideration in the decision.
  • On May 14, 2015, the Judge found:

“This Court finds that plaintiffs’ present motion fails to demonstrate a palpable error by which this Court and the parties have been misled.”

The Judge goes on to say:

“This Court finds that the defendants’ reasoning and arguments in their response to the motion for reconsideration accurately states why this Court granted their  – not plaintiffs –  summary disposition.”

Here is a copy of the May 14, 2015 legal ruling for the lawsuit:

20150514 50_Opinion and Order re Motion for Reconsideration

During this time period, Ann Marie Rogers shared a number of ‘Privileged and Confidential’ documents with Beth Markel, Maureen Thalmann, and Supervisor Gonser.  Some of this information pertained to ‘Closed Session’ legal matters.  Here are copies of the Township Attorneys’ discoveries regarding inappropriate sharing of “Privileged and Confidential” material.

Investigation results from PRC attorney

Investigation results from Township Board’s attorney

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township? The Judge’s decision to dismiss the lawsuit raised by Commissioners Ann Marie Rogers, Roger Schmidt and private citizen Beth Markel, vindicate the other Parks Commission members.  This lawsuit has cost the Township in the form of legal fees and reputation.

Ann Marie Rogers disclosure of ‘Privileged and Confidential’ material with a fellow plaintiff and others is under review by the Oakland County Sheriff Office.  This matter appears to be much more serious than the alleged open meeting act violations that she claimed occurred.  The Judge made his decision on the open meeting matter.  It is now up to the Sheriff’s Office to determine if there is sufficient evidence to warrant prosecutorial action.

Hopefully our citizens will consider the actions of our current Township officials when we vote in 2016.  Oakland Township deserves better!

Richard Michalski

 

Reason for Parks Commissioner Rogers removal from personnel committee now apparent – so why did Schmidt and Rogers storm out of meeting in protest?

2 Replies

The recent findings from the Oakland Township Attorneys’ investigation into the forwarding of Privileged and Confidential material by Parks Commissioner Rogers and former trustee Thalmann shed light on some of the proceedings at the January 14, 2015 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting.  Commissioners Rogers and Schmidt stormed out of that Commission meeting in protest to Ann Marie being removed from Personnel Committee.

At the January 14th meeting, one of the agenda items was the approval of the Chairman Zale’s recommended committee members.  He has the authority to make recommendations, but they must be approved by a majority vote of the Commission.

Chairman Zale recommended that Commissioner Rogers be replaced by Commissioner Perruzi on the Personnel Committee.  Former (in office at that time) Trustee Thalmann attempted to influence Mr. Zale.  However, Mr. Zale indicated he wanted Mr. Perruzi to be on that committee.  Commissioner Rogers objected to the change, and the change was approved in a 5 to 2 vote. Commissioners Rogers and Schmidt were in the minority.

Commissioner Schmidt indicated he did not agree with how the proceedings went, and suggested he would disclose some information that would make visible to the citizens of Oakland Township the reasons for Mr. Zale’s recommendation.

In protest, Commissioners Rogers and Schmidt walked out of the meeting. As they were walking out Mr. Schmidt stated:

“You people are the worst bunch of conniving people that I have ever met in my entire life! “

Earlier he said he wanted to make sure the Commission would be

“accountable for what you have done!”

Here is a video of meeting proceedings as described above:

 

Mr. Schmidt never did present the material that he alluded to in his comment, but the results of the Township Attorneys’ investigation, specifically Ms. Rogers sharing the November 13, 2015 ‘attorney client’ protected documents, gives a very clear indication of the reasons for Mr. Zale’s recommendation.

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township?  Chairman Zale had the authority to make subcommittee appointments.  Mr. Zale clearly had reasons for making his recommendations.

Walking out of a meeting in the manner that both Mr. Schmidt and Ms. Rogers did is not only unprofessional, but may have violated their oath of office.

Commissioner Schmidt has aligned himself with Ms. Rogers on many issues.  I trust he feels that same way about ‘accountability’ now that Commissioner Rogers’ actions are being investigated by the Oakland County Sheriff’s office.

Oakland Township would be well served if Commissioner Rogers steps down.

Richard Michalski

Related article:

Former Trustee Thalmann and Current Park’s Commissioner Rogers DID forward “Privileged and Confidential” material!

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