THE SKINNY ON THE "PUBLIC FLOGGING..."

First of all, thank you to those of you "diehards" who showed up yet again at the Board meeting last Tuesday night or who may have submitted comment to supervisors on the Carrie Jennings "reprimand" matter!

In a word, the efforts to chastise, reprimand, remove Commissioner Jennings FLOPPED, big time.

This, in my opinion, is due in part to Supervisor Kenny Miller's coming down on the "right side" of the fence and in part to what I'd have to call Supervisors Ceminsky and Madden shooting themselves in the feet.



On the matter of violating policy, Supervisor Miller stated that "we don't have a policy," implying he didn't see how to discipline someone for violating it. He stated yet again that he is "as guilty as anyone else" on the behavior count, again mentioning that he has had to "apologize publicly" to people in the past. (At least he HAS apologized.  Still waiting for Ceminsky to apologize to Behrendt on the Agritourism submission.  Reference earlier blog, "Sweep...") Miller then told Ceminsky "You can throw me (Miller) off the Board!  Go ahead!"

Score one for reason.

Next, a motion was made to "reprimand" Commissioner Jennings on her "ill-advised" sending of her information-only email directly to the Commission in the absence of a Clerk. (Let me repeat, this is NOT a violation of Open Meeting Law.  Period. That was established and voted on--I think unanimously, memory serves--at the previous Board discussion of this matter.  The attorney had backed this up when he stated that there was "no discussion" of Township matters outside of a public meeting occurring in connection with that email, serial or otherwise.)

Supervisor Miller stated generally that he felt a verbal reprimand or caution was enough under all the circumstances. Supervisor Madden pushed for "a formal letter of reprimand to be placed in her file." He was informed that the Township does not HAVE personnel files to put a letter in!  Ceminsky and Madden wanted the minutes kept permanently.  They were told that (in our retention policy filed with the state) Board minutes are kept permanently. Indeed, they are legal documents.  They are posted on the website.  Cloud is forever.

The motion to reprimand went forward.  Chair Miller called for a voice vote. Budenski: Aye; Behrendt: Nay and would like to state something after the vote; Miller: Aye; Ceminsky; Nay; Madden (who had stated that he "agreed 100% with Mark Ceminsky:" Nay.  Chair Miller then stated in a somewhat dazed voice, "The motion failed!"  Madden appeared to ask Ceminsky what this meant.  Ceminsky told him, "She does not get a reprimand."  Miller asked Behrendt what he had wanted to say.  Behrendt said to Madden and Ceminsky, "I think you were confused on what you were voting for."  He went on to say that, "Since the motion failed, I don't have to say anything."

Mark Ceminsky then went on to move that Jennings be removed from the Commission because "she violated the Open Meeting Law."  This motion, seconded by Madden, failed 3-2.  I don't have to tell you who voted how.

Score two for reason.

Ceminsky said he wanted the "recorded minutes" to be preserved.  What he meant was that he wanted the disc recording of the meeting kept and not destroyed once the minutes are approved, which is also part of our retention policy.  (Quick aside:  The disc does not constitute "minutes," Supervisor Ceminsky.  The minutes are the minutes.  Those written, Board-approved documents that you deal with every month.  The recording is the recording.)

The disc will be preserved.  That's interesting to me, because on that disc will be kept forever Supervisor Ceminsky stating that Commissioner Jennings violated Open Meeting Law, a serious accusation. On that disc will be kept forever Ceminksy's and Madden's previously stated positions and then their voting against themselves on the motion to reprimand that failed.  Goodness!




Does this make you, as a citizen, a little unsettled?  If you come before the Board on a matter important to you, will you be reassured that the Supervisors will all understand the impact of their votes before they cast them?