Tag Archives: Tea Party Leadership

Township Board appoints John Giannangeli to vacant Trustee seat. Will the real John Giannangeli please stand up?

3 Replies

At the April 22nd Township Board meeting, the Board unanimously appointed John Gianngelli to the vacant seat created by the resignation of Trustee McKay.  There were 15 potential candidates.  The motion for John’s nomination was made prior to any discussion by the Board on any candidate.  He is a member of Supervisor Gonser’s Friday ‘breakfast club’.

 John indicated on his application that he has “solid interpersonal skills” and is “open to other’s opinions “.  A video of his comments at a meeting held last summer show a different picture.  In his prepared speech at the April 22nd meeting, John indicated his support for ‘transparency’.  His emotional outburst  challenging the video taping of the earlier meeting paints a different picture.  

The Board appeared to have their mind made up going into the meeting.  John’s addition to the Board increases the potential of Supervisor Gonser’s ‘vision’ of Oakland Township being implemented.

There were a total of 15 candidates considered for the position.  At the April 22nd meeting, Trustee Thalmann quickly nominated one candidate, John Giannangeli. Trustee Langlois seconded the motion.  Trustee Bailey suggested that the Board hear from the candidates present prior to taking a vote.  Gonser left it up to the Board.  The Board then heard from the candidates who were present. John Giannangeli was the only one who gave a prepared speech.  They then opened it up for citizen comments.  Here are excepts from the meeting proceedings:

Supervisor Gonser has a ‘breakfast club’ that meets on Fridays.  Many of these individuals have regularly commented at Board meeting on topics supporting Supervisor Gonser’s position.  John Giannangeli acknowledged that he participates in these meetings “to keep up on what’s really going on (in the Township)”.

On John Giannangeli’s application, he claimed “solid interpersonal skills” and is “open to other’s opinions ” as character traits.  At a meeting last summer, John Giannangeli demonstrated a dramatically different side of his character.  He made a very angry outburst against the author of this post because I was video taping the meeting. I was taping the meeting since it was not being video taped by CMNtv.  Here is that outburst from Mr. Giannangeli:

John may claim his outburst comment was taken out of context. If he does, I am more than willing to post the entire video of the meeting.  He may claim his outburst is only a single incident.  If he does, I am more than willing to post other emotional outbursts from various previous meetings.

Stress often brings out an individual’s true character.  John’s spontaneous comments are far more telling of his character than the written prepared speech he gave at the April 22nd meeting.  Please contrast ‘the scripted’ version of John in the first video with the ‘unscripted’ version of John in the second video to form your opinion if he is the right person for our Township Board.

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township?  The appointment of Mr. Giannangeli is another ‘chess move’ by Supervisor Gonser to dramatically change the physical character of Oakland Township by making appointments of individuals with similar “Tea Party” ideologies. Please go to these related previous posts:

Gonser’s lack of knowledge of our Township’s Zoning

Zoning Board of appeals member John Markel’s comments on Zoning

Gonser’s Tea Party belief in a UN Global conspiracy

Richard Michalski

Township Board finally agrees with Oakland Township citizens’ desires

Leave a reply

Over the past year, some members of the Township Board have wanted to take over the responsibility for managing the Land Preservation Fund.  This fund has been managed by the Parks Commission since the creation of the Fund.  At the March 11 Board Meeting, the Board finally agreed to have the Parks Commission continue to manage this fund.  It was not a unanimous vote.  Supervisor Gonser and Trustee Thalmann wanted to have the Township Board take over the management of the Fund.  Treasurer Langlois, Trustees Bailey and Buxar supported having the Fund managed by the Parks Commission.

Some additional background on this issue has been previously reported on this website.  On April 1 of 2013, Supervisor Gonser had authorized a memo to be written by then Superintendent Creech to have the Land Preservation Fund taken over by the Board.  During the course of this past year, the facts came out that this was a unilateral decision by Supervisor Gonser, and not one that the Board had approved.  Fortunately due to the persistence of many citizens who have supported our Parks programs, the Board finally resolved this issue with the vote on March 11th.

At the March 11th meeting, one of our citizens gave a very clear and direct explanation why the Parks Commission should continue to manage this fund.  Here are her comments and the vote on this issue.

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township?  Due to the multitude of citizens that supported the Parks Commission on this issue, we were able to get enough Board members to recognize that the many initiatives  the Parks Commission has undertaken over the years is not part of what Terry Gonser considers a global United Nations conspiracy called ‘Agenda 21’.  Continued citizen involvement is critical to preventing our Township from being taken over by a group of radical ‘Tea Party’ individuals.

For additional background information see:

Supervisor Gonser’s REAL views on trails, pathways, bike paths and environmental protection 

Trustees seize Land Preservation Assets

RIchard Michalski

Is Oakland Township’s leadership part of the Republican Party “establishment”?

5 Replies

The agenda and the discussions that occurred at a recent Oakland Township Republican Leadership meeting gives some insight into the thinking and ideology of our Oakland Township leaders.  One of the agenda items answers the question raised in the title of this post. They clearly set themselves apart from the ‘establishment’ Republican Party. If you like what is going on in the Republican Caucus in Washington you will love our Township leadership.

On January 20th, an Oakland Township Republican meeting was chaired by Oakland Township’s Lead Precinct captain, John Reilly, the husband of Oakland Township’s Clerk – Karen Reilly.  There were approximately 20 people there including Supervisor Gonser, Township Clerk Reilly, our Township Treasurer’s husband Joe Langlois, at least two of our Township’s Republican Precinct Captains, four of our Parks Commissioners (one left after listening to State Representative Tom McMillin) , one of our Zoning Board of Appeals members, our State Representative Tom McMillin (for a portion of the meeting) and other citizens.  The meeting was held at the Woodland Estates trailer park clubhouse.

Here is the published agenda for that meeting:

  1. Oakland township updates,  Supervisor Gonser (7:00-7:20)
  2. 2014 state and local races, John Reilly (7:20:7:35)
  3. State issues, State Representative Tom McMillin (7:35-8:00)
  4. The Republican establishment’s “war” on tea party and libertarians at both the national and state levels (8:00-8:20)
  5. Networking, socializing, brainstorming (8:20-9:00)

This website has already reported on a number of comments made by Supervisor Gonser at that meeting.  One of them being his belief that the past Township leadership and Boards were influenced by a 1992 non-binding United Nations agreement called ‘Agenda 21’.  He believes that this agreement is a Global conspiracy that has influenced our Township’s approach to paths and trails, our wetland ordinance, our nuisance ordinance and others.  See:

Gonser –  Agenda 21 is a Global Conspiracy
Gonser – Trails and Safety Paths are part of a UN Conspiracy

The remainder of this post will share some of the other items discussed at that meeting.

During the discussion of state and local races, John Reilly indicated that it was very important to have ‘conservative’ candidates run for Township Precinct delegate positions in the August Primary election.  He indicated that Precinct delegates play a key role in County Conventions in getting conservative party candidates on the ballot for State positions like the Supreme Court, Lieutenant Governor and Secretary of State. He indicated that he would bring applications for the Precinct delegate positions to the next meeting, and would submit the applications to the County.

They went on to discuss several upcoming races and who they would support.

  • They were hoping that a more conservative candidate would challenge Senator Marleau.
  • Regarding the McMillin seat, Gonser stated that Mike Weber is ‘not a conservative’ and supported Mark Avery as the Republican candidate.
  • They indicated that many Rochester School Board members needed to be challenged because they were too close to the Unions.
  • They also indicated that many Lake Orion School Board members needed to be challenged since they reversed their position on the school millage issue.

Tom McMilllin comments included;

  • Several education issues that the State Legislature is dealing with.
  • The Detroit Bankruptcy
  • The State Budget surplus
  • The use of Drones in our country
  • Gas drilling and mineral rights and community use of eminent domain

The strategies that the group discussed to counter the Republican establishments “war” on tea party and libertarians included:

  • Prayer
  • Defunding ‘establishment’ Republican candidates, and only contribute to Republican candidates that are ‘conservative’.
  • Get ‘conservative’ precinct delegate elected at local level
  • Find a more ‘conservative’ candidate that would challenge Senator Marleau.
  • Support Mark Avery as the Republican candidate to replace McMillin, since according to Gonser “Mike Weber is not a conservative”.
  • Find more ‘conservative’ candidates for both the Rochester and Lake Orion School Boards.

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township?  The definition of being a Republican in Oakland Township is changing.  Being a moderate Republican is no longer acceptable to our Township Leadership.  Our Township leadership is clearly aligned with the “Tea Party” mentality that has contributed to the gridlock in Washington.  There is a saying “All politics is local”.  The citizens of Oakland Township need to make sure that our local politicians represent our views, not those of an extremist ideology.

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