The determination made tonight, after 1.5 hours of discussion, was that:
- there was no violation of the open meeting law
- there was a violation of internal policy regarding how to handle emails in order to avoid the perception of open meeting law violations
- there is a need to reprimand me for disruptive behavior at planning commission meetings.
(At least that's what I think I heard. What did the people in the room think? They knowingly scheduled the meeting for a time that I could not be there because of work obligations.)
Cory Behrendt, as the Township IT supervisor made it possible for me to be at the meeting electronically.
Thanks, Cory.
And thanks again to all of you for showing up or supporting me in other ways.
It matters, so does your vote.
Carrie
I agree with an attorney assessment of the three complaints after his review; Triteness upon triteness! I remember when you were sitting at the table in front of the Board at a meeting and Kenny Miller threw the MAT Manual at you. Rather than point fingers and get caught up in POWER, several Board and Planning Commission members should review their behavior. Supervisor Behrendt, came to the meeting prepared to discuss his "Findings" to support his view point. His preparation was meant to initiate Board discussion which would then enable the entire Board to develop Findings which are well thought out, rational and complete. As stated by MAT, the Findings of Fact are a synopsis of the facts and law the Board will use to make its decision. I question why Supervisor Ceminsky had a problem with this. The three Planning Commisioners who filed complaints would be wise to embrace your research, honest intent and dedication to this community. The elections over the next two years are going to be very important. Thank you for your perseverance and ability to continue to contribute in a way that matters to this community.
ReplyDelete