Tag Archives: Unprofessional behavior

MUST WATCH BEFORE YOU VOTE: Gonser’s supporter’s ‘dirty politics’ caught on surveillance video

On August 1, 2016, a day before the election, a supporter of Terry Gonser was caught on surveillance video removing a flier from an Oakland Township owner’s door (although impossible to tell, it appears to have been an Andy Zale flier that is Red White and Blue) and then peered into the house for an eerily long period of time, scaring the children. She left a copy of Supervisor Gonser’s campaign flier on the door.

This is yet another example of the lack of integrity in Supervisor Gonser and his campaign. Please watch the following video. It should convince you not to vote for Terry Gonser. It was enough to convince the owner.

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township?

THE VIDEO SPEAKS FOR ITSELF!

CAN ANYONE IDENTIFY THIS WOMAN?

Richard Michalski

Summary of Supervisor Gonser’s actions while in office

1 Reply

The attached video is a summary of Supervisor Terry Gonser’s many egregious actions since taking office in 2012. The content shown in the video is being distributed to the residents of Oakland Township on a flier so they can make an informed decision when they vote on August 2nd. I trust many of you have already seen the flier.

This video is also being posted on the recently created Oakland Township Watchers Facebook Page.

Thanks to the many Oakland Township citizens that have helped make this distribution possible.

Richard Michalski

Supervisor Gonser violated Charter Township Act in 2014!

Legal review underway to determine if Supervisor Gonser had authority to commit Township to significant financial liability without Board knowledge or approval

4 Replies

At the June 14, 2016 Oakland Township Board meeting, Treasurer Langlois disclosed that on September 3, 2014, Supervisor Gonser signed a safety path easement agreement with a property owner to transfer “all responsibility and liability for the safety path and boardwalk to the Township and its residents”. This agreement was done without any knowledge, or agreement, from the Township Board.

The agreement could result in hundreds of thousands of dollars of cost to the Township in repair and/or replacement of that badly deteriorated path. The property involved is on the Southwest corner of Adams and Silverbell Roads. The parcel is currently owned by a Moceri entity. It was purchased from the church on that corner approximately 90 days after the easement was signed. The easement document that the Supervisor signed indicates that it was prepared by an employee of a Moceri entity. (The ownership information was corrected after the initial post. The change in ownership was incorrectly stated as just the opposite of what is now correctly stated.)

Treasurer Langlois stated there is no evidence of a Board review, or a Legal review of this matter (the Township attorney did not appear to have any knowledge of the agreement). She also stated:

“I do not believe Supervisor Gonser had, or has, the authority to accept easements on behalf of the Township. Only the Board of Trustees has that authority. The document appears to show an overreach on the part of the Supervisor, and a complete improper action.”

Supervisor Gonser sat silent for almost 3 minutes while others spoke before he stated:

“Unfortunately I don’t remember why I signed it. I can only state that it certainly did not come in a vacuum. Someone had to present it to me and indicated it was appropriate to sign, but I don’t remember the specifics of it.”

He made no attempt at explaining why he did not bring it to the Board for approval, or even for information.

Trustee Ferriolo stated:

“No matter what was involved in the history and rationale for doing it, it should have been brought to the Board.”

The Township attorney has agreed to perform an investigation on this issue and will report out at the next meeting scheduled for June 28, 2016.

Here is a video of the June 14th discussion:

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township? We certainly must wait for the results of the Legal investigation to be complete before we draw any final conclusions, but Supervisor Gonser’s signature, and lack of willingness to inform the entire Board of his actions, is consistent with previous behavior.

This website has reported that Supervisor Gonser has repeatedly attempted to change the governance structure of Oakland Township to one where he would become a full time “Strong Supervisor”. He has taken several unilateral actions without Board approval. The Board has repeatedly responded by reaffirming Ordinance 97, which limits the Supervisor’s responsibilities, and maintains a professional Township manager who reports to the entire Board.

Here are some key points:

This easement agreement will certainly result in significant added costs to our Township.
It appears to have been made unilaterally without Board knowledge or agreement.
Under normal conditions, Gonser’s action could have resulted in a recall campaign being held.
Gonser is currently a candidate for election on August 2nd.
The Absentee ballots are going out on June 29th.
It is essential that the Legal review be completed by the June 28th Board meeting,
It is absolutely essential that we get adequate press coverage immediately after the June 28th meeting, so people can make an informed decision prior to sending in their absentee ballot.

My recommendation is that the Board be prepared to issue a press release on June 29th to the Oakland Press and the Rochester Post informing them of the outcome of the investigation. If there are acceptable reasons for Gonser’s signature, there may be no need for the press release. However, the press release may still be necessary since Gonser should have brought it to the Board for information.

The citizens need to have a clear understanding of this situation before they vote!

Richard Michalski

Were residents misled by Supervisor Gonser regarding the Parks and Recreation Commission’s legal fees?

Supervisor Gonser’s false allegations and inconsistent comments and examples of his ‘ethics’ while in office

3 Replies

At the September 22, 2015 BOT meeting, Supervisor Gonser made many allegations about former Manager Warren Brown. Trustee Ferriolo discovered that the Supervisor’s allegations were unsubstantiated. At the October 13, 2015 BOT meeting, Supervisor Gonser made a statement that was not consistent with what he had publicly stated at the September 22, 2015 BOT meeting.

At the September 22, 2015 BOT meeting, Supervisor Gonser made many accusations against our former Township Manager, Warren Brown. Mr. Brown was not present at the meeting to defend himself, since he had already resigned from the position.

Before making the many accusations against Mr. Brown, Supervisor Gonser stated:

“I wanted to express the disappointment I have in our former Township manager. The second week after he came, he asked the Supervisor if I would turn over all the projects I was working on to him, which I did, and that was the last time I spoke to him, or he spoke to me actually. The last time he . . . for a number of weeks.”

Gonser then proceeded to claim that the lack of progress on the projects he mentioned was due to the fact that we do not have a “strong Supervisor” form of governance in Oakland Township, a position both he and former Trustee Thalmann tried to change MANY times over the past 3 years.

Between September 22 and October 13, Trustee Ferriolo did some research to determine if Gonser’s accusations were true. After consulting with Township Staff, Ferriolo determined that Gonser’s accusations were not true. Trustee Ferriolo commented on his findings at the October 13 BOT meeting. He felt Gonser’s comments were “statements unbecoming a Township Supervisor”.

After Trustee Ferriolo made his comments, Supervisor Gonser attempted to defend himself. He said:

“Trustee Ferriolo was speaking somewhat beyond his knowledge. There WERE communications between the Supervisor and the former Manager regarding a lot of these project. They did not get done, so I am simply stating the facts. I stand by that! “

This statement contradicts what he said at the September 22 BOT meeting.

Did he, or did he not speak to Warren Brown about progress on the various projects? Both statements cannot be true!
Was Gonser just trying to defend his unsubstantiated claims?
Was Gonser trying to ‘get even’ with Warren Brown, since Mr. Brown made the following statement at the last Board meeting he attended prior to his resignation?

“If the Supervisor cannot admit the error of his ways, fill the chasm, and become more malleable in his approach to his position, he should follow my lead. . . . To offer his resignation would be an act of service for the greater good!”

Here is a transcript of the accusations Gonser made at the September 22 meeting.

Supervisor Gonser’s negative comments about Warren Brown Sept 22, 2015

Here is a video showing a portion of Gonser’s comments at the September 22 meeting, what Trustee Ferriolo said at the October 13 BOT meeting, and Gonser’s statement trying to defend himself.

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township? Supervisor Gonser has yet again failed to live up to one of his stated priorities when he ran for office. He told the League of Women’s voters that one of his top three priorities, if elected, was Integrity and establishing an Ethics Policy for Oakland Township. His most recent statement is yet another example of what many citizens have come to expect from our Supervisor.

There are many examples that make clear Mr. Gonser’s ‘personal’ ethical standards. The reader can determine if these actions meet their ethical standards. Here are a few (there are more that could be added). Each item is linked to a previous post that supports the statement:

In April of 2013 he lied at a Board meeting when he said he had sent a letter to the Attorney General “as an individual” regarding a Blossom Ridge issue.

In April of 2013, he stated, “There are policy decisions and strategies that must not be shared until after they have come to fruition.” So much for transparency!!!

He did not recuse himself in a vote on October 8, 2013 where he personally benefited from the outcome of the vote.

He refused to allow former Trustee Judy Keyes to comment at the May 13, 2014 Board meeting.

Gonser’s neighbor filed for Personal Protection Order against Gonser

On January 13, 2015, he admitted that he had called and cancelled the televising of a very significant meeting when he denied having done that in a Rochester Post article.

On January 13, 2015 he made slanderous comments against former Trustee Judy Keyes that he later retracted.

On January 13, 2015, he falsely accused fellow Board members of Open Meeting Act violations.

On March 24, 2015 he made false accusations against fellow Board members regarding sharing of Privileged and Confidential material.

Do these actions meet your ‘litmus test’ for ethical behavior?

Richard Michalski

Did Supervisor Gonser mislead voters in 2012 election, or did he not understand the job of Supervisor in our Township?

1 Reply

Several things occurred at the September 22, 2015 Oakland Township Board meeting that highlight the need for clear understanding of expectations when we elect our officials. Candidates running for office need to have an understanding of the structure and role for the position they are attempting to fill. If they want to change the structure or role, they should communicate their intentions during the campaign. Similarly, the voters that support the candidates need to have a clear understanding of what to expect from the candidates they support. The Board’s events at the September 22 meeting indicate we had neither in the election of Supervisor Gonser in the 2012 election.

At the September 22nd meeting, the Board was forced to make a motion to remove Supervisor Gonser from having a private office. Shortly after taking office in 2012, the Supervisor got the Board to agree to convert a conference room into an office that all of them could use as a ‘drop in office’. Over time, the Supervisor has taken over control of that room as his private office.

At the July 14, 2015 Board meeting, the Board approved an office rearrangement that had been under study for some time. It was unanimously approved by the Board members present. Gonser was not present at that meeting. The plan comprehended the increased needs of the Township. In that plan, the Supervisor and all Board members were provided a desk location that any could use to accomplish business while at the Township Hall. Since the Supervisor position is a part time position, not a full time position, historically, our Township has not had a dedicated office for the Supervisor (contrary to what Gonser claimed in his Sept 15th email).

As the office rearrangement was ready to begin, Warren Brown, our former Township manager, asked the Supervisor to remove his personal belongings from the office he had taken over. The Supervisor refused to do so, disregarding the Board’s direction from the July 14th meeting. The manager’s request, and the Supervisor’s response are shown in the following emails.

Gonser’s demand for personal office

Our Township Attorney advised the Supervisor that he does not have a statutory right to a private office, given the structure of our Township. Here is a quote from our Township attorney from the September 22 meeting:

” In this circumstance, given Ordinance 97 and the fact that we are a ‘manager run’ government, I have given the opinion, and I have spoken with the Supervisor about this directly, that I do not believe he is entitled to an office.”

In order to protect our Township’s interim manager Jamie Moore (Warren Brown has resigned) from having to deal with this contentious issue, the Board felt in necessary to make a formal motion to have Gonser remove his things from the room he had been using as his office. The motion was approved 6 to 1, with Gonser being the dissenting vote.

Gonser responded by saying:

“I guess if the Supervisor chooses to reside back there, I guess Lieutenant Spencer is going to have to be pressed into duty to call the Oakland Press and haul out the Supervisor- not a good scenario!”

Treasurer Langlois responded by saying:

“That’s your choice whether or not that be the scenario.”

Trustee Ferriolo added:

“Absolutely!”

Gonser concluded by saying:

“The Board’s choice.”

Later in the meeting, the Supervisor indicated that until recently, he had been spending 50 to 60 hours per week at the Township Office. He said he had provided Warren Brown a list of things that he had been working on shortly after Mr. Brown started work in the Township in March of this year. Gonser went on to say that he was disappointed with the lack of progress on the items during the 5 months that Mr. Brown was here. Many of these items have been issues long before Mr. Brown came to Oakland Township.

Gonser’s acknowledgment that he had been working on these items was a clear admission that he had violated Oakland Township’s Ordinance 97. This behavior is consistent with his repeated personal desire to be a “Strong Supervisor”. He went on to say that his actions were in response to what he believes are the desires of the people who voted him into office.

So, we have a Supervisor who:

disregards the July 14 Board decision regarding his office arrangements (just because he disagrees with it),
purposefully violates Ordinance 97 (just because he disagrees with it),
bases his actions on what he ‘believes’ the voters want him to do (even though it is contrary to the structure of the position he was elected to fill),
flagrantly disregards an Ordinance that he swore to uphold when he took his oath of office (even though he is legally obligated to follow and uphold the Ordinance).

Supervisor Gonser did not make clear, when he was running for office, that he wanted to change the structure of Oakland Township (i.e.. Strong Supervisor, private office, full time job for Supervisor, increased salary), yet he strongly believes that the majority of the citizens who voted for him agree with him. The Board, by a 6 to 1 vote, have repeatedly indicated they do not agree with him.

Here are video excerpts from the September 22, 2015 BOT meeting:

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township? Expectations for change when a person is running for office need to be clearly communicated by the candidates. Gonser truly believes that his mandate was to change the structure of Oakland Township’s governance, but he never made his intentions known to citizens during the campaign. Many citizens, including Board members and previous supporters, have changed their opinion of Supervisor Gonser over the past few years based on his actions. He is not what they ‘bought into’ when they voted for him.

I guess it is possible that Gonser did not understand the job of Supervisor in our Township prior to being elected. If that is the case, an argument can be made that his lack of understanding of the position is precisely why a ‘Manager’ form of government is good for our Township. If he did understand the job of Supervisor, and neglected to communicate his desire to change it, a deception occurred that we cannot let reoccur in 2016.

Our political system relies on our elected officials following through on the things they promised when campaigning. Having a personal agenda that is hidden from the voters, does not serve the community well. Ignorance over the job responsibilities does not serve our needs either. The chaos in our Township over the past three years is due to one of these occurring in our Township.

Richard Michalski

Please attend September 9th Parks and Recreation meeting if you want to help restore integrity in Oakland Township

1 Reply

Please attend the Wednesday September 9, 2015 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting that will be held at 7 pm at the Township Hall on Collins Road. The Commission will be considering a motion to censure Commissioner Ann Marie Rogers for a breach of ethical and honorable behavior. Citizen support is needed if we want to maintain ethical behavior in our elected officials. It is hoped that the Commission will move this agenda item near the beginning of the meeting.

Here is the agenda for the meeting (see item 13):

Sept 9, 2015 PRC agenda

As previously reported on this website, it was discovered that Park’s and Recreation Commission member, Ann Marie Rogers, as well as former Trustee Maureen Thalmann had shared privileged and confidential material with others. The findings were forwarded to the Oakland County Sheriff’s Office and Prosecutor’s office to determine if any illegal actions had taken place. Their investigation determined that no criminal actions had taken place.

In the July 27, 2015 Oakland Press article, describing the issue and the Prosecutor’s findings, Ann Marie Rogers is quoted as saying:

“The fact of the matter is that the (Oakland County) prosecutor found that I did not commit any crime nor did anything improper. Maureen Thalmann and myself have been completely exonerated of any wrongdoing.”

Here is comment made in the May 7, 2015 Oakland Press article on this subject, where Ann Marie Rogers attempts to defend her actions:

Rogers noted she was never asked to sign an agreement stating she not share attorney-client communications following her 2012 election to the board.

It appears Ann Marie Rogers believes since sharing of privileged and confidential material was not illegal, it was not wrong or improper behavior. It appears that others on the Parks and Recreation Commission may think otherwise, and may be censuring her for her actions. The Parks and Recreation Commission will be considering officially censuring Ann Marie Rogers’ behavior.

The Township Board had previously passed a similar resolution indicating that sharing of Privileged and Confidential material was “breach of trust” and that a failure to report an unauthorized receipt of correspondence marked Privileged and Confidential was ‘improper”.

Here is a copy of the Township Board’s Resolution 15-15:

Resolution 15-15

Here is a copy of the draft resolution being considered on September 9th:

Parks and Recreation censure motion

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township? Oakland Township has now established a new standard for ethics in government. Sharing of information marked ‘Privileged and Confidential’ will now become the acceptable standard for elected officials – unless the Park’s and Recreation Commission make it clear that such behavior is unacceptable.

An individual’s moral values are the basis for one’s behavior. Ethical behavior is therefore in the “eyes of the beholder”. Laws are written to protect society from significant unethical behavior. Laws do not restrict ALL unethical behavior. Sharing Privileged and Confidential material has now been determined not to be illegal or criminal, and, in the eyes of one of our elected Parks Commissioners, acceptable.

The issue of whether the information HAD been shared by the two elected officials was never contested. The issue the Sheriff and Prosecutor had to determine was whether sharing the information constituted a criminal act. To be clear, the prosecutor DID find that Ann Marie Rogers did not commit a crime. However, they DID NOT conclude, as Ann Marie stated to the Oakland Press, that there was not ANY ‘improper’ behavior. It appears her value system is based on only following the laws on the books.

The Park’s and Recreation motion will parallel a similar motion the Township Board took following Maureen Thalmann’s actions and the County’s findings. Both actions will make it clear to our elected officials that sharing of Privileged and Confidential material IS considered a breach of ethics and honorable conduct in our Township.

Here are some previous posts on this subject:

Board Resolution – Acts By Rogers, Thalmann “Repudiated” as a “Breach of Trust” . Gonser’s inactions termed “improper”

Parks Commissioner Ann Marie Rogers attempts to defend her behaviour

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

Trustee Thalmann’s resignation and legal investigation

Richard Michalski

Planning Commissioner disappointed that Gonser did not add much needed experience to Planning Commission

1 Reply

At the September 1, 2015 Planning Commission meeting, Planning Commissioner Danny Beer expressed his disappointment that the Supervisor did not take advantage of the experienced candidates that submitted their applications for the two open Planning Commission positions. He acknowledged the need for adding people with Planning experience to the inexperienced Planning Commission and said the Supervisor “missed the boat by not putting some experience on this Planning Commission.”

Danny Beer is a Gonser appointment to the Planning Commission. He was added to the Planning Commission in 2014. Danny was present at the September 31st Board meeting where two Planning Commission appointments were to have been made. As previously reported, Supervisor Gonser wanted to appoint two individuals with no Zoning or Planning experience. The Board did not accept his recommendations. Gonser refused to nominate other candidates that did have Planning or Zoning experience.

At the September 1 Planning Commission meeting, Danny Beer stated:

“I was disappointed, personally disappointed, that there wasn’t more consideration given to the applicants who had a lot of experience. There were a a couple of people that were very anxious to be a part of this, with a lot of background, and I am new and have less planning experience than you guys that have at least dealt with it in your other workings. I never have.

In my opinion, we need some experienced help – some people to fall back on. Both of you guys have been very helpful, John and Ron, but we are all new at this, and I really feel we missed the boat by not putting some experience on this Planning Commission! “

Other Planning Commission members expressed their hope that the Supervisor would nominate one or two of the candidates that have the much needed experience and have submitted their applications for the openings.

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

Adding fuel to the fire, Gonser was quoted in an article in the 9/1/15 edition of the Oakland Press as saying:

“I have to talk to people around the community and see who’s interested. Unless they’ve served on the planning commission, they don’t have experience.”

This statement reveals two things:

He does not intend to nominate any of the more experienced people who have applied for consideration.
He either doesn’t understand the type of experience being sought by the Board members who spoke on the record on the matter or he is spitefully misrepresenting their opinions in order to present himself as a victim of the Board’s refusal to support him.

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township? With six of the seven Board members recognizing the need for adding Planning experience to the Planning Commission, with several candidates having the much needed experience, and with a plea for help from the Planning Commission for that help, why would the Supervisor be reluctant to appoint individuals that have submitted their applications and are very qualified to help the Planning Commission?

If Gonser does not take appropriate action at the next Board meeting, I am afraid the Township may get involved in yet another legal issue that will do nothing but hurt Oakland Township.

The Supervisor needs to accept reality, and do what is right for the Township, not his ego!

Richard Michalski and Jim Foulkrod

EDITORIAL: Has Gonser Willfully Violated the Law? We Need to Know.

4 Replies

In January this year the Board passed a resolution re-affirming the long-time Township ordinance that places responsibility for managing the township squarely in the office of the professional full-time manager hired by the Board of Trustees. It sent a clear message to Supervisor Gonser that he should act in accordance with the law. The Township Manager was directed to inform the Board of any deviance from that ordinance by the elected Supervisor. There has been no public follow up to this resolution. There have been no facts made public that would indicate that the resolved will of the Board of Trustees has or has not been followed.

What there has been is a constant drumbeat of statements, events and indications that Gonser is not following the law. It is Gonser’s sworn duty uphold the law and to perform the duties of his office to the best of his abilities. If he is not then the facts must come out and appropriate action must be taken.

I call on the Board of Trustees to launch an official investigation to ascertain with documented facts whether Supervisor Gonser has exceeded the authority of his office. They should call for a thorough search of emails, calendars, phone logs, official documents and correspondence to see whether Gonser has exercised illegal authority or claimed improper responsibility for any facet of any of the enumerated duties of the Township Manager.

I hope they will call on me to testify that I know that he has intentionally violated the ordinance because I had a conversation with Supervisor Gonser earlier this year in which he told me that he was not abiding by the law. I had gone to his office hours to ask if he had Board authorization to meet with the Road Commission of Oakland County (RCOC) to discuss his proposal to surface some gravel roads with a “chip-seal” material to improve their durability. Gonser had spoken at a community meeting about this proposal and his intent to work with the RCOC on this project. This type of township business is clearly the authority of the full-time Township Manager under our Ordinance 97. When I asked him if the Board gave him authority in this matter he said no, but it doesn’t matter because the people who voted for him expected him to be the “leader of the Township” and they would not have voted for him if they knew that all he could do was “chair the meetings”. He said he was doing the will of the voters.

I hope that they will ask Trustee Ferriolo to detail the facts behind his email to the Rochester Post that reportedly said “Our township operates on a similar system of government as Rochester, and Mr. Gonser refuses to accept his limited role under it.”

I hope that Treasurer Langlois and Trustee Buxar will go public with the facts that they described that led them to propose the above mentioned Resolution that demanded that Gonser act according to the law.

I hope that the Trustees who devised the interview questions that were asked of all the candidates who were interviewed for the Township Manager’s position about how they would handle this disagreement about legal authority in the Township will speak in detail about what they know that made it important to ask those questions.

I hope that outgoing Township Manager Warren Brown will be asked to detail, on the record, any violations of Ordinance 97 that he has knowledge of. He was informed of the problem during his interview process and he responded clearly about how he would handle the problem.

This is public business and the Board of Trustees must stop relying on toothless Resolutions. What is going on is not a secret but the hard actionable facts are being withheld from the public, This is not an academic argument. Gonser has harmed the Township with this behavior and it is truly in the best interests of Oakland Township to put and end to it. Effective action is required.

Jim Foulkrod