Rezoning “Skip Flip” Illustrates Maccarone’s Hypocricy In Supporting Current Recall

When you think about the current recall attempt there is one political name that immediately comes to mind:  Ralph “Skip” Maccarone. Feeling the heat from residents opposed to the recall, Maccarone has tried to make the case that criticisms of him are off base because he is a private citizen.

Skip’s wife Linda is a documented and determined Save Shelby recall fanatic.  Skip publicly supported the ouster of current township officials in a written editorial in the Source newspaper.  Since Mr. and Mrs. Maccarone have been heavily involved in the political recall attack, they are both fair game for critics.

Skip and his new BFF Rick Bottcher launched their attack against Supervisor Stathakis to try and lend some credibility to the recall.  Shelby residents we have spoken to were emphatic that the Maccarone/Bottcher reunion had the opposite effect.  It highlighted the recall for what it is: a vengeful power grab by people who want to go back to the future.

Residents who read the Maccarone/Bottcher “joint” editorial in the Source came away with one clear impression: rezonings are no good.  That was the theme of the Bottcher/Maccarone Source attack.  One could say that Skip Maccarone was trying to lead us to believe that he is better than the current Supervisor, because he would never support a rezoning idea that township residents opposed.  Right?

Thinking back to when Skip Maccarone was Supervisor:
• Didn’t Skip have a huge rezoning issue come up during his first year in office?
• Didn’t Skip support a rezoning change vehemently opposed by neighboring residents?
• Didn’t Maccarone flip-flop from being against a rezoning to being an enthusiastic advocate?

You betcha!!!

However, the recall gang that claims to want to save Shelby thinks what Skip did back then doesn’t matter now because he supports their recall.  As the Save Shelby group has already made clear, past actions by public officials have no meaning today.  “True or not, it is high time some folks realize that what happened in the past is not the issue that is effecting the Township today,” is what Save Shelby recall advocate Valarie Alspaugh recently said.

The massive rezoning/consent judgment at the northeast corner of 26 and Van Dyke (just north of Pearson Street) was a hot issue for Skip Maccarone.  During the 2000 election, Maccarone told residents to their face that he would never support that rezoning.  That pledge helped win him votes.  However, shortly after he won the election Maccarone did a political “Skip Flip” and supported the rezoning.  This was a violation of a promise that went against the wishes of township residents.

For months afterwards, Maccarone took a spiteful and angry tone with anyone from Pearson Street who spoke at Board meetings against his rezoning.  Skip belittled residents as he stared over the top of his glasses (see photo above), called taxpayers names, tried to intimidate people so they would not come up to speak, and declared that anyone who disagreed with him was “sorely misinformed.”

Skip’s “I know best” theme became a hallmark of his eight years in office.  His superiority complex culminated with his outrageous plan to spend $50 million more dollars on new buildings, paid for by new bonds, without a vote of township residents.  “We were elected to make decisions like this,” is what Skip said about his plan.  Trustee Lisa Manzella agreed with Maccarone.  However, Shelby Township residents disagreed with this enormous bond and spend plan, and in 2008 we told Skip enough is enough and sent him on his way.

When the 26 and Van Dyke rezoning came up during a Board of Trustees meeting in 2001, we remember how residents who live along Pearson Street came out to protest.  Despite public comments against it, Maccarone pushed the rezoning.  This did not sit well with Pearson residents who were forced to endure a major disruption to their lives.

The Board of Trustees meeting in question was held on Tuesday, May 1, 2001.  The issue that residents were angry about was the 26 and Van Dyke rezoning/consent judgment.  We are happy that these resident comments were transcribed and preserved for the last 10 years.  You see, it does pay to save things like this just in case somebody, someday tries to rewrite history.

Reading the comments below by three Pearson Street residents, you will see how outraged they were at Skip Maccarone’s advocacy for the rezoning that he promised he would not support.
_____________

Caroline Spitz
I am also very disappointed about the decision this Board made to allow 27 acres of residential property to be developed as a C-3 and C-4 commercial nightmare.  I found it very strange that our community’s source of information, the Source newspaper, would diminish the importance of this decision by first not even mentioning it in the April 22nd edition – the edition following the decision.  But further having it buried in an article the second week.

Not even calling for comments from the Board members that opposed the decision, or the residents, or anybody else — just Mr. Maccarone.  And his comment was a 180 degree turn from everything he said this whole past year.  Now all of this is good for the community.  And maybe some of the other readers were as confused as I was about his other comment about this recreational area being a positive edition to this part of the township.  Thanks, but no thanks, to the tot lot.  It hardly measures up to the hundreds of recreational areas that we have a half mile away from that spot at Stoney Creek Metro Park.  The tot lot’s not going to cut it.

I am also frightened by the way this Board is forced to make decisions with guns pointing at their heads.  The entire Board just sat here until the motion was dragged out and declared a failure.  It was obvious that none of you were proud of your decision.  Except for Mrs. Filar and Mr. Carabelli, we thank you very much for seeing through the eyes of the residents and maintaining your campaign promises. 

Following this decision, one of my neighbors contacted Mr. Maccarone and in their discussion he was told that sometimes we should just trust our elected officials to know what is best for our township.  That statement will forever haunt me, because that’s exactly what we did.  We trusted each and every one of you that told us for the last year:  Don’t even worry about it, this project doesn’t stand a chance; and its a shame; and I could never support a project of this scale; and this is a bedroom community; and this is just too intense.  All of you said these things, and we believed you and we trusted you.  There will not be any more trust in our officials.  Thanks to those of you whose actions in the end spoke louder than the empty promises you made.

Not only did you misrepresent yourselves on this 26 Mile development, but you opened the door to all other developers to come in and take over regardless of zoning, density concerns, or the wants and needs of the Shelby residents.

I would also like to take this opportunity to respond to the name-calling of the residents.  I didn’t appreciate being called a member of the “peanut gallery.”  This meeting room is a place for all residents to come in to voice their opinions and support each other in our concerns.  It’s not a court room, we’re not criminals, we have opinions, and we have concerns — concerns of the heart.  They affect us personally, and we are emotional about them. 

If some of you would go home and watch this meeting, watch how many times you snicker, or roll your eyes, or shrug your shoulders at residents or other Board members that are not completely 100% on board with your thoughts.  You should set the example.  We are not the “peanut gallery.”  We are residents with concerns.  It was disrespectful and it comes from our hearts when we’re up here and we’re supporting each other. 

This was a miserable decision, it’s been a miserable year, and it was an even worse let down…followed by that comment.

Beth Loran
…and since I can’t clap my hands, I will verbally applaud my neighbor. 

To relate to this Board the disappointment, and the shock, of your decision and your comments two weeks ago and since in the paper would be totally impossible.  My comments I refer to are to the vote that you took after closed session on April 17th.  To call us a peanut gallery, Mr. Maccarone, was totally uncalled for and very unprofessional for a man of your caliber, as your claim. 

Point of clarification too, for your benefit, the newspaper reading that you referred to last week in your comments to Mr. Spitz, were basically to myself.  I was re-reading the most recent issue of our Shelby Source with reference to the Board’s previous denial to the rezoning of the 26 and Van Dyke property.  I believe it was the May 6th meeting. 

I wanted to make sure that before I approached this podium and spoke, which for over a year now I have referred to as an honor to be able to speak, I wanted to make sure that I had all of your points for denial correct.  Heaven forbid that I may incorrectly speak or change wording to suit my own benefit.

For months you encouraged us to speak our voice and support each other.  But suddenly you’re attempting to stifle our applauding and encouraging our neighbors.  I believe, Mr. Chairman, that you violated our right of free speech and expression.  Your attempt to quiet the audience, along with the loud, boisterous closed session which followed, leads us to wonder how you choose to handle confrontations.  The pounding of tables and the yelling at each other that we heard sitting in this room, were not the positive attributes you campaigned under last summer.  Or in which I feel are proper for the Supervisor, elected officials, or Trustees of a very prominent Michigan township. 

I am so embarrassed to think that those same elected officials of my neighbors and myself could, and eventually did, tuck tail and give in to the threats and shady promises of big developers.  Each and every one of you sitting here tonight are on record of being in opposition of this high dense, overkill development within Shelby Township over this past year.  Mr. Chairman, you and Mrs. Kowal each sat in my home and told us last summer, that development of this magnitude would never come to pass in Shelby Township.  You claimed to see smaller stores on these blueprints two weeks ago.  The only thing we see smaller is our confidence and support in our Board of Trustees. 

You agreed unanimously on March 7th that this was not consistent with the township’s adopted Master plan; it was out of scale with the needs of the township at this location; Kirco never showed that the property couldn’t be developed as currently zoned, which you requested numerous times; and that there was never sufficient transition to the residents on the south side of Pearson; and that the growth and development patterns within the community in this particular area did not justify it.  What happened?  What did Kirco development and Mt. Clemens General Hospital offer the Board members of this township?  In my opinion, nothing was received to benefit the township. 

According to the newest plans presented two weeks ago, the lot sizes are smaller than presented on the 27th, not larger, as reported in the Shelby Source.  Also, it doesn’t meet the township’s required parking space ordinances, as the plan shows they are nearly 200 spaces short of what’s required.  And today, the most popular vehicle purchased are SUV’s which even make our parking spaces harder to get in and out of.  If we are already 200 spaces short, how can we getnship’s required parking space ordinances, as the plan shows they are nearly 200 spaces short of what’s required.  And today, the most popular vehicle purchased are SUV’s which even make our parking spaces harder to get in and out of.  If we are already 200 spaces short, how can we get away with that. 

You seem so pleased to be receiving this tot lot on the corner of our street and Van Dyke.  Yet, who in their right minds would allow their children to play at that location.  With the shopping center parking lot to one side, and a busy intersection on the other, which will soon be five lanes.  In my opinion, those shopping at the stores will be first dropping off their children to play unsupervised, which is already what Kirco has told us.  That the dads would be dropping their wives off to shop at Kohl’s and Target, while they go on over to Home Depot. 

Plus, since Kirco so graciously will be deeding back this tot lot to the Parks and Recreation Department, my tax dollars are now going to be paying for the maintenance and upkeep of it.  I don’t see that the residents of Shelby Township received anything of benefit except for, as you told me yourself Mr. Supervisor, the added strain and burden on our police and fire stations; the added traffic that our roads already cannot handle. 

Two weeks ago, I advised you of the article that quoted the CEO of Home Depot himself that they will be quoting 40 stores over the nation in this next year.  According to the information given to me by current employees at other locations in our area, this store had already been pulled from Home Depot’s plans.  Kirco stated that Home Depot was the deciding foundation store for all the others to sign on the line and commit themselves.  Did you rush this going in before going to court, just to satisfy and protect Kirco, insuring their contract with these larger stores?

Also, imagine our shock now to learn that the Pearson Street residents will be required to pay an assessment to bring sewer lines down our street.  Those of us at the west end paid dearly for engineered septic fields for our homes. 

The vote taken two weeks ago gravely effect those of us living in this township.  For many years, my family alone has been here 13 years Mr. Supervisor, unlike your family of three years.  Even in my anger, I would still like to stop and thank Mrs. Filar and Mr. Carabelli for voting as the voice of this township, and their conscience.  You did not give in to being bullied or voting against your record.  Your honesty and your backbone are to be commended.  I honestly wish, and feel, though Mr. Holmes that if you felt you had a gun to your head, that you could have voted with your fellow members. 

Honestly, I have lost all faith in this Board.  The reversal of the Ambassador issue at 25 and Van Dyke, due to high density, followed by the approval of the Shelby Creek project, of even more density, along with the circus proceedings of tonight, have opened the door to all developers to come in and do exactly whatever they feel. 

In my opinion, Shelby Township has lost credibility in all of Michigan.

Bill Spitz
This is regarding the 26 Mile and Van Dyke development that you guys suddenly decided to go for.  I just find it very unusual how after one closed session, five of the board members broke their promise to the community that this would not happen.  Those promises you made to us during your campaigns, at our homes, in front of our families, at the township hall, and even at my church.  Shame on you. 

We campaigned for you people, and we reached over 500 registered voters for you.  I wish I would have known then what I know now.  Mr. Maccarone, you told us you weren’t afraid of court, that you haven’t lost a case yet.  Why didn’t this enter the legal system?  After one closed session, Kirco got all they wanted, everything they asked for.  Where was the lawsuit?  How can you settle it so quickly?  Surely, this is an unusual situation.

Any comments from anybody?  I didn’t think so.

I would like to read something that I read earlier, recently.  I’d like to read this to you.  In American history and constitutional law, the term Bill of Rights usually signifies the first 10 amendments to the Constitution of the United States.  More precisely, the first eight of them specify certain basic freedoms and procedural safeguards of which the individual may not be deprived by governmental power.  Taken together these specified freedoms and protections are the core of the American civil liberty, and provide the constitutional basis for judicial protection of the rights of an individual.

Of particular importance, are the provisions of the First Amendment: freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition.  People must have freedom to communicate their ideas and to promote their views because only informed and involved citizens can make the American system of representative government work.  First amendment protects the rights of all U.S. citizens to express their thoughts — be it verbal, written and including clapping.

Mr. Maccarone, two weeks ago you said you think of Shelby residents who clap at meetings as a “peanut gallery” and as a circus.  I am very offended by this.  In my opinion you acted like a dictator to us – and this is America.  This peanut (Mr. Spitz hands Skip a peanut), Mr. Maccarone, is to remind you of your commitment to the people of Shelby Township that you apparently have chosen to ignore and think of as only a peanut.
__________________________________

When he spoke during the televised Meet the Candidates forum on July 18, 2000, then candidate Skip Maccarone made some very interesting statements.  We have reprinted some of these below:

“I will neither cause nor permit disrespectful conduct aimed at citizens.”
   How respectful did Pearson Street residents feel when he called them the peanut gallery? How much respect did he show when someone did not say what he wants to hear and he ignores them or stares them down?  Is screaming at a board member at the top of his lungs respectful?

“I’m not looking to encourage development that isn’t wanted by our people.”
   At the work session (televised) on the 26 mile and Van Dyke piece that Mrs. Spitz references – Skip was indeed encouraging that huge development. 

“We have to have the courage to say no to developers from time to time to get them to shape our projects to what our residents want.”
   Where was his courage to say no to Kirco.  Maccarone folded after the very first time it came to the Board as part of a consent judgment.

“If the Downtown area were to be built today it would bankrupt the community.”
   The plan Skip publicly condemned at this forum was an award-winning design concept for the 24 and Van Dyke quadrant.  This plan would have been developed by private business using private money, not public sector township tax dollars.  How would that bankrupt our township?
   Skip said the 24/Van Dyke concept plan was a lousy idea.  However, Skip’s overpriced “campus” plan, introduced a few years later, to spend $50 million of new bonds/taxes on public buildings (using public tax dollars) was a terrific idea.  When you consider the true cost, the Maccarone/Manzella “campus” plan is the one that would have bankrupted our township - and that’s why residents rose up and said NO to Skip’s “campus.”

Skip Maccarone’s new-found opposition to rezonings underscores true hypocrisy.  He supported over 50 rezonings during his term.  By comparison, the current Board has approved only three rezonings and yet Maccarone has the cynical sense to publicly condemn our current Trustees.  Has Skip conveniently forgotten his track record?  Or is it that Skip’s rezoning record doesn’t matter anymore since he has joined forces with the recall gang?

Considering his “Skip Flip” on the 26 and Van Dyke rezoning, his advocacy of a $50 million campus spending proposal (without a public vote), and his high and mighty attitude with taxpayers, Skip Maccarone is the guy who actually deserved to be recalled.

Until next time....

The Recall Radicals Worship “Lenin’s Law" As They Pursue Their Self-Serving “Revolution”

“A lie told often enough becomes the truth”

— Vladimir Lenin

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870-1924), was a Russian Marxist revolutionary, and creator of the Soviet Communist Party.  Lenin lead the 1917 October Revolution and helped found the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).  As head of the Bolsheviks, he led the Red Army to victory in the Russian Civil War before establishing the world’s first official socialist state.

Lenin adhered to a philosophy that if you tell a lie often enough, especially to those who may not be connected and know all the details, the people will eventually believe that lie as truth.  This is how Lenin built his power base to become leader of the socialist/marxist empire.

According to Lenin’s Law, detail and fact are not important.  POWER is important.  Under Lenin’s Law fiction becomes fact and deception becomes destiny.  Why is this relevant?  Because the group pushing to recall Shelby Township officials are implementing Lenin’s Law.

The words and deeds of the Nightingale/Save Shelby gang would certainly make Lenin proud.  This group is spreading fiction as fact in hopes of making their deception our destiny.  These people (some residents, some not) are running around neighborhoods using falsehoods, distortions and selective interpretation to prop up their recall.  This includes lies about DARE, false statements about how the new police station is unnecessary, falsehoods about Supervisor Stathakis raising taxes, and untrue comments about higher spending supposedly enacted by the current Board.

A lie told often enough becomes the truth! This has become the official motto of the Nightingale/Save Shelby recall.

Given the recall group’s lack of concern for truthfulness, most residents see this recall for what it really is: a power grab.  Remember, those behind the recall have a personal motive: TOWING.  Oh sure, they claim “it ain’t so” and say they only want what is best for our township.  Do you believe them?  Do they really only want what is best for themselves?  If these people care about Shelby as much as they claim to, why are they spreading malicious and malignant lies, rumors, and distortions of reality?

The Nightingales and others recall extremists, including some members of the police union, don’t care about our township.  Let us rephrase that.  They only care about Shelby Township as long as they have control over township spending, control over who gets jobs, control over who receives township contracts, and control over the budget.  Beyond that, the recall goons think they have the right to say anything, discredit anyone and destroy everything.  The ends justify the means.  Sounds very much like Lenin’s revolutionary rhetoric!

Truth vs. Lies About Shelby’s DARE Program

The DARE program first arose during the “Business from the Floor” segment of the Tuesday, April 5th Board of Trustees meeting.  Shelby resident Norm Dziadzio came to the podium and asked about DARE after hearing comments that the program has been eliminated.  Dziadzio wanted to know if those remarks about DARE’s elimination are correct.

Supervisor Stathakis then informed Shelby residents that, despite what they have been hearing, DARE is still very much in effect in the public schools.  In fact, he noted that he and other Board members had recently attended several DARE graduations in Shelby Township.

In response to Dziadzio, Trustee Paula Filar went a even further.  Filar mentioned that she had received several calls from residents who had heard that DARE was eliminated.  Mrs. Filar gave an informed summary of DARE’s restructuring, as proposed by Shelby Police Chief Robert Leman.  The purpose of these changes, supported unanimously by the Board of Trustees, was to save money while making sure students continued receiving drug awareness and education by keeping DARE within the schools and essentially the same.

This discussion, which shot holes into Save Shelby’s DARE comments, didn’t sit well with some people.  Two days later, Trustee Manzella sent an e-mail criticizing Trustee Filar for speaking the truth about DARE.  Here again, Manzella used this opportunity to blame Supervisor Stathakis for DARE’s elimination.  Below is Manzella’s rambling e-mail:
______
From: lisa@timesavingappraisal.com [mailto:lisa@timesavingappraisal.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 10:59 AM

Subject: Re: DARE

Paula, this would have never came up again, nor would you have gotten all the phone calls you claimed you were getting, if Rick hadn't spoken at all the DARE graduations and told the parents that the Board eliminated DARE but only he and you and sometime Viar supported DARE.  At several of them he specifically stated that, where he could have stated that although the entire Board supported DARE, this was a decision the entire Board was forced to make.  I'm you and and I would not have gotten the phone calls we did if that was clearly an honest statement made at the graduations.  Furthermore,  if the treasurer and supervisor, where not under the impression that the 2 of them could out-wit and/or bully and intimidate Christine Johns, we would not have been saddled with the crossing guard situation because of this decision.  The diplomatic way this was handled all along is a joke and it seems like the only reason this came up again is because residents were lied to at many of the graduations and we are going to blame Bob Leman for this, there is no other logical reason to revisit this. Lisa
______

EDITOR’S NOTE:  Shelby families, and public school officials, we have spoken with have absolutely no idea what Lisa Manzella is blabbing about in her e-mail above.  From what we ascertain, Supervisor Stathakis did not say that the Board eliminated the program during DARE graduations.  Once again “Lisa the Liar” is making things up!
   If you don’t believe the truth about DARE, call your nearest public school.   Better yet, contact Superintendent Christine Johns yourself to learn the truth.

Anyway, the discussion about DARE really struck a chord with Manzella.  Why is she afraid of the DARE discussion?  Is she terrified of being exposed as an outright liar?  As for Lisa Manzella’s complaint that Shelby has been “saddled” with school crossing guards, that is a nothing but nasty slap in the face to these dedicated men and women.  We will make sure to tell every crossing guard we meet how Trustee Manzella truly feels about what these hard-working men and women do for our children.

DARE came up yet again at the April 19th Board of Trustees meeting.  This time the subject was raised by recall advocate, and Save Shelby spokeswoman, Val Alspaugh.  Alspaugh tried to lead people into believing that Shelby Township gave DARE back to the schools in exchange for taking over school crossing guards duties.  She tried to link the two, even though the evidence illustrates that DARE and school crossing guards are not related.  These are two separate issues discussed at two separate times — each with their own challenges and legal requirements.

Responding to Save Shelby’s newest misinformation about DARE, Trustee Paula Filar informed the public in a fact-based discussion.  Filar outlined the process whereby DARE was restructured as proposed by the Police Chief and approved by the ENTIRE BOARD (7-0 vote).  Mrs. Filar presented a summary of DARE and why the program was being changed to save money while still giving students continued access to drug education.

After listening to this presentation, Alspaugh didn’t know what to say or do.  Filar’s facts directly contradicted Alspaugh’s theory (some call it B.S.) about DARE.  So what happened? Didn’t the DARE talking points given to Alspaugh by her fellow recall advocate, and Save Shelby supporter, Trustee Manzella take into account what to say when confronted by the truth?

The Nightingale/Save Shelby recall gang is primarily responsible for spreading lies about DARE.  The Save Shelby website reads:

“board members canceled the DARE program which broke off a past agreement with Utica Community Schools. Under the past agreement Shelbys cost was approximately $50,000 to DARE and liaison officers and Utica Schools covered the cost of approximately $185,000 for crossing guards. Now with the DARE program canceled, Shelby Township must hire and train all crossing guards -- net increase in cost to township residents is over $100,000 and Utica Community School students no longer benefit from the DARE program.”

Contrary to what the Save Shelby gang says, the Board of Trustees DID NOT cancel DARE.  School students are still benefiting from the program.  Save Shelby’s statement on DARE is a lie!  In fact, given this group’s love of lies, residents can’t believe anything these people say about anything.

Worried about Save Shelby’s quickly disintegrating credibility, Alspaugh’s priority at the April 19th meeting was damage control.  She selected bits and pieces of information from various sources to try and prove (somehow) that Save Shelby’s statements about DARE are correct.  These people still believe that the program has been eliminated — which it has not.  Furthermore, Save Shelby’s ongoing assertion that DARE and crossing guards are related is also a fraud.  UCS gave the crossing guards back to local communities in order to cut the school district’s multi-million dollar budget deficit.

Alspaugh said it was her “understanding” that DARE is no longer in schools.  Trustee Filar disputed that claim and asked Alspaugh where she was getting her information?  Alspaugh refused to answer.  She fumbled with her papers and said she got it from newspapers, notes, etc.  Even though she was trying to come across as a DARE expert, she ended up looking foolish.

The Nightingale Rage Against Shelby Taxpayers

Speaking of foolish, let’s focus on Nick Nightingale’s performance at the April 19th Board of Trustees meeting.  All dressed to impress in his mismatched suit and tie, Nightingale ended up impressing no one.  When he approached the podium we could see the enormous chip on his shoulder.  Nick was angry about DARE — probably because statements that he and his Save Shelby “friends” have been making about the program have been exposed as pure lies.

Showing contempt for township officials and residents, Nick Nightingale attacked the character and integrity of Supervisor Stathakis and Trustees Mike Flynn and Paula Filar.  Nightingale even had the nerve to question the truthfulness of Trustee Filar.  When attempts were made to provide answers to his questions, Nick said he wasn’t interested in listening.  As he said once before when asked by Supervisor Stathakis if he wanted an answer to a question, Nick Nightingale tersely replied “No...it don’t matter what you say anyway!”

The Nightingale family’s “it don’t matter” attitude is the real problem.  “Don’t bother us with facts because Trustee Manzella has told us everything we need to know.”  This is why most residents are wisely refusing to jump on their recall bandwagon.

Once finished speaking from the podium, Nick Nightingale went back to his seat.  Trustee Paula Filar then began discussing DARE and outlined the process whereby minor changes were made to the program.  Immediately when Trustee Filar began speaking, Nick Nightingale, in classic form, shouted from the floor.  DECORUM BE DAMNED!  Supervisor Stathakis asked Nightingale to calm down, but Nick refused.  This public disruption resulted in Nick Nightingale being escorted from the Board room.

Once the ruckus was over, Trustee Filar then proceeded to clarify the DARE situation.  She put little Nightingale in his place by saying, very firmly, that she takes her job as a Trustee seriously.  Mrs. Filar told the Nightingales, and the entire Save Shelby bunch, that she is not lying and resents being labeled a liar.  You go girl!

Filar read minutes from the August 11, 2009 Trustees work session called to discuss staffing in the police department.  During that the work session, DARE came up in the broader review of police department restructuring.  Shelby’s police chief presented six scenarios for the Board’s consideration.  The minutes from this work session are 17 pages in length, far too long to reprint in their entirety here.  However, we encourage you to read them and discover the truth about DARE.  Minutes from are available for FREE.  Just send an e-mail to stopskip08@aol.com and we will forward a copy.

However, for discussion purposes we have highlighted key points from this meeting:

MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION OF THE CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF SHELBY BOARD OF TRUSTEES HELD ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 2009 IN THE BOARD ROOM OF THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 52700 VAN DYKE, SHELBY TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN.

The work session was called to order at 3:07 p.m. by Supervisor Richard Stathakis.

Members Present: Richard Stathakis, Terri Kowal, Paul Viar, Paula Filar, Michael Flynn, Lisa Manzella,
Doug Wozniak

1. Discussion regarding Police Department Promotions

Police Chief Robert Leman made a brief presentation regarding the current organization of his department. He pointed out that a sergeant’s position and ieutenant’s position are vacant as a result of recent retirements in June of 2009.  He submitted a list of scenarios to the Board for consideration.

Scenario #1 - Make the promotions, with no new hires. The DARE officer and one school officer will be assigned to the road to fill the two vacant patrol officer positions that were vacated as a result of these upcoming promotions.

Scenario #2 – Make the promotions with no new hires. The position of the traffic officer that will be promoted from police officer to sergeant will not be filled. We will only be replacing one patrol officer with the DARE officer. That will provide two school liaison officers. He will be short one traffic officer.

Scenario #3 – Make the promotions with no new hires. Don’t fill the traffic spot. The DARE officer will be on the road. Our two school officers would do part school liaison work and part drug resistance program (tentative).

Scenario #4 – No promotions – no new hires. The command spots will be filled with overtime.

Scenario #5 – No promotions. The administrative lieutenant will be assigned to the road to replace the retired lieutenant. The detective/sergeant would be assigned to the road to replace the retired sergeant. The DARE officer will patrol, investigate or replace the detective/sergeant in the Detective Bureau.  The two school liaison officers would remain at the school and serve in the capacity as half drug and half school liaison officers.

Scenario #6 – no promotions. He would take one day shift sergeant and fill the opening on nights. This would leave the Police Department with two vacant positions on days. One shift would have a vacant lieutenant position and one shift would have a vacant sergeant position. They would attempt to backfill those on days with the two captains and the administrative lieutenant. However, the weekends are not covered. We would be paying overtime for the weekends anytime benefit time is taken on the weekends. They would also be paying overtime for two hours in the morning, from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. and then from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. in the afternoon.

Mrs. Filar had a question concerning Scenario #5. Mrs. Filar asked what would be the savings if you didn’t touch the DARE position.

Mrs. Manzella asked the Chief which scenario that he presented tonight is the best choice for his department. Chief Leman responded #3.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Option three, as proposed by the Chief, removed the two DARE officers from the school and put them on the roads protecting the public.  There would be no new hires for the two DARE positions.  This is the option that the Chief wanted, and the Board unanimously supported to restructure Department staffing.  Any comments by Manzella and her Save Shelby cohorts about Supervisor Stathakis pushing DARE’s elimination are false.

Mr. Stathakis agreed we do not want to cut services. For that reason, he doesn’t feel he can support Option #3. He doesn’t feel this Board is ready today to cut the DARE program. That is what we would be doing if we went for Option #3.  He feels we need a lot more information than we have now.

Mr. Flynn doesn’t want to cut officers on the road. Mr. Flynn agreed with Scenario #5. He proposes that we have discussion with Utica Schools with regard to picking up some of those costs. If they pick up DARE and/or the two
school liaisons then perhaps we can afford these promotions.

Mr. Stathakis stated we have not completed discussion with the schools so we really don’t know what they can pay for. Before we start cutting programs, we have to be aligned with our school system. He believes prior to this discussion taking place, he doesn’t see how we can proceed with anything but Option #6.

Sgt. Virginia Kovalcik feels the main thing here is the DARE program. She was a DARE officer and a school liaison officer for many years. She doesn’t believe the schools will cover any of the Police Department’s expenses for these services. She felt DARE is a very good program and briefly provided her past experience with this program. However, times have changed. Every single high school in the Utica School District now has a full-time retired police officer, including police Chiefs, in their schools. They have more authority than our Police Department.  We need probable cause to check something out. They only need reasonable suspicion. They can go in and get all of the information and hand it to us and we don’t have to talk to the students. They do all of the preventative programs and they in a sense have taken away much of our responsibility She worked hard to enhance the DARE program and she would hate to see something happen to it. However, it is more important to have the officers on the streets because they are not as necessary in the schools as in the past. Sgt. Kovalcik feels the age group we have to address is junior high (7th or 8th grade). She feels we can do that with one officer to handle some prevention programs.

As you can clearly see from these minutes, acting upon advice from Chief Leman and a former DARE officer, the Board decided to restructure the police department.   The DARE positions were not filled and the schools have since taken over the program.  Supervisor Stathakis clearly said he did not want to cut DARE.  There is nothing sinister here the DARE program remains essentially the same today as it was before.  The Save Shelby crew’s DARE distortions may serve their political goals, but they are a disservice to residents who support a strong township.

A Statute of Limitations On An Elected Official’s Actions and Words?

When she got home from the April 19th Board meeting, something was bothering Alspaugh.  So she went to the Shelby-Utica Patch website and typed this comment (typos and grammatical errors included):

Valarie Alspaugh
12:51 am on Wednesday, April 20, 2011
    Although I am a bit disappointed that I was unable to finish my planned statement this evening, I was unaware that the time that is taken for others to answer my questions counted towards my time, but I am glad that I actually got some answers. Therefore, I am not going to complain about not being able to finish.
   I am fairly new to this community, but nowhere near new to the problems that scandal and controversy can cause a community. After reviewing hours upon hours of video of past Board meetings, I have come to notice that there are a few citizens (and after tonight a Board Member) who refuse to get of the "yester-year" bandwagon. True or not, it is high time some folks realize that what happened in the past is not the issue that is effecting the Township today.


We couldn’t believe our eyes.  What could have prompted Alspaugh to come up with the notion that what an elected official says and how he or she votes on an issue in the past has no relevance today?

In reviewing the meeting, the only thing we could think of were were comments about public speaking times.  Responding to a resident who came up to complain about not having enough time to speak during five minutes from the floor, Treasurer Viar brought to light some very interesting information.

Treasurer Viar first cited a Macomb Daily article from July, 4, 1998 when Clerk Terri Kowal was quoted speaking about reducing public comment at Board meetings.  At that time, the limit was ten minutes and some Trustees, namely Trustee Nancy Bates and Trustee Dave Kady, were pushing to reduce speaking time to three minutes.  Here is what Macomb Daily reporter Frank DeFrank wrote:
   Trustees Nancy Bates and David Kady want to cut the time limit imposed on residents who address elected officials during the public comments portion of regular Board of Trustees meetings.
   Bates would like the time limit reduced to three minutes.  Kady said he’d be happy with five.  Both claim meetings then would run more efficiently.
   The two first-term trustees may have enough support.  Clerk Terri Kowal and Treasurer Linda Stout both endorse a reduction in the time limit.
   Kowal surveyed more than a dozen communities to compare their policies with Shelby.  She found most limit public comments to three minutes per speaker.
   “There is not another community in the world that allows 10 minutes,” Kowal said.  “This board has to take these meetings back.  These are our meetings to conduct business.”

Treasurer Viar continued by citing remarks that Trustee Lisa Manzella told the same newspaper when the current Board voted to reduce speaking time from 10 minutes to five minutes back in 2009.

As reported in the February 25, 2009 issue of the Macomb Daily, Manzella said that vote didn’t go far enough.  Manzella said she thought five minutes was “overly generous.”  Then, in that same story, she stuck the knife in our back even further by adding “our meetings have been hijacked” by residents who come forward to speak or raise points of concern at Board meetings.

Clearly, Alspaugh didn’t like the fact that her two friends on the Board, and their past statements and votes, were being brought up again as an issue now.  Using Alspaugh’s assertion about past practice of public officials, we come up with the following scenarios:
• Alspaugh likely believes Manzella’s advocacy for spending $20 million police/court building (without a public vote) doesn’t mean anything to our township today.  We believe it does.
• Alspaugh probably thinks Manzella’s comments about Board meetings being hijacked by residents who ask questions doesn’t matter.  We strongly disagree.
• Alspaugh probably feels that her friend Manzella’s support for $50 million in new spending for a campus is irrelevant to today’s financial discussions.  We recognize the relevancy of this matter.
• Alspaugh most definitely thinks what an elected official told a reporter about an issue years ago has no merit today.  Most Shelby Township residents believe that there is no statute of limitations on votes or statements by elected officials.

Most taxpayers disagree with Alspaugh’s views.  What elected officials did and said years ago DOES matter today.  Past actions are known as that public official’s “track record” which gives us an insight into future decisions.  We are not talking about private citizens.  We are talking about public officials, paid for with public tax dollars, who take public votes on public issues that directly impact the public.  While everyone can understand Alspaugh’s desire to defend her two Save Shelby “friends” on the township Board (Trustee Manzella and Clerk Kowal), just as she did with her DARE argument, Mrs. Alspaugh proved that she just doesn’t get it.

In fact, Alspaugh insistence that past practice means nothing, combined with Save Shelby’s pack of lies about DARE, the police building and everything else, shows just how out of touch with reality these people truly are.

Until next time...

Shelby Township Resident Blasts “Senseless” Recall

We enjoy expressing our viewpoints about relevant township issues, and this includes the current recall campaign organized by the Nightingale family.  However, unlike the Save Shelby gang, we don’t rely on angry rants, useless ramblings, innuendo, gossip and unfounded rumors to justify our statements.

It is well documented how the recall fanatics are using unrelated, and often false, information to trick people into signing petitions.  Below are some of the many false statements these people are making to try and justify (in their mind) their plan to kick out township officials...

DARE PROGRAM

The recall nuts are telling people that Shelby’s DARE program has been eliminated.  These people fault Supervisor Rick Stathakis for cutting it.  However, as one resident recently wrote to us after hearing this information:   
“How can the DARE program be gone if my son just went through a DARE graduation?  What are these people talking about and why are they lying?” 

If someone tells you the DARE program has been eliminated, they are LYING!  Due to current financial times, the DARE program has been restructured within the schools to save money, while keeping the program functional.  The entire Board of Trustees supported the restructuring of DARE, as proposed by Shelby’s Chief of Police, during a meeting in November, 2009.  The DARE program is very much alive.

Now, Trustee Lisa Manzella is running around with recall petitions declaring that the DARE program was killed by Supervisor Stathakis.  She knows better, because she voted for the restructuring.  The program has not been eliminated.  That is just one of her many lies. 

“Poor Lisa the Liar just can’t be believed.  When she’s out of office we’ll ALL be relieved!”

NEW TOWNSHIP POLICE STATION

The recall gang is complaining that Shelby Township does not need a new police building.  They have even convinced some elements of the police union to go along.  Could this be a reaction by the union to potential cost reductions within the police department?  Judging from the feedback we have received, residents are angered that the police union is playing politics instead of protecting the public.

These people, once again, are ignoring facts.  It has been PROVEN that the new building is needed to address deficiencies in the current overcrowded building.  Shelby’s police chief is on record supporting the building, but this simply doesn’t matter to the Save Shelby thugs.  During Skip Maccarone’s administration, many of the people who oppose the current $4 million building (paid for with cash) eagerly supported a $20 million justice center (financed with new bonds - without a public vote).  So is this really all about politics?  Has their desperation surrounding the recall blinded these people to the actual and documented public safety needs of our township?

When Skip Maccarone was trying to sell his $20 million police palace, he had Shelby This Week take a video tour of the current police station to document why a new building is necessary.  Remember all the discussion about safety?  Remember how we were told police officers lacked proper work space to do their job? Remember how detectives complained about having to work out of a trailer behind the police hall? Anyone who saw that videotape could clearly see the need.  Need was never the issue — cost of construction and bonding without a public vote were!

Shelby’s recall gang hopes to trick people into signing petitions based on another false argument.  Once again, Trustee Lisa Manzella is heavily involved.  She has publicly criticized the new building, and complained that given the economy we can’t afford to build it now.  She enjoys ripping up Supervisor Stathakis for not building the previous $20 million project.

Lisa Manzella chaired Skip Maccarone’s committee that came up with the $20 million “justice center” idea.  Manzella did not want taxpayers to vote on new bonds (taxes) for this massive construction - she wanted herself and other politicians to decide.  When you have that much political capitol invested into a project, anything less simply won’t suffice.   

Shelby’s new police building is a good and necessary project.  That is why, despite all of her contrived outrage about the facility, Trustee Lisa Manzella voted for the new building, voted to hire an architect to design it, and was front and center with a cheesy smile during the official groundbreaking ceremony (see photo at right).

Trustee Lisa Manzella, speaks with a forked tongue.  She has declared the new police building unneeded, even as most within Shelby Township’s police department agree that the building is necessary.  She has supported the building, while speaking out against it.  Isn’t this what you would call a politician trying to have it both ways?  

TOWING, TOWING, TOWING

The Nightingales and their Save Shelby gang claim the recall is not about towing.  However:
– The Nightingale family is spearheading the recall;
– The Nightingale family is a towing company; 
– Nightingale family member after family member speaks at nearly every Board of Trustees meeting about supporting the recall; 
— All these recall threats began after the Board of Trustees voted unanimously (7-0) to put the township’s towing contract out for competitive bid.

Looking at the facts, and how their family reacts whenever the subject of towing comes up, do you believe their contention that the recall is not about towing?

Even though we thoroughly enjoy writing, sometimes it is good to let others do the talking.  This is why we now turn our attention to an editorial from the April 8, 2011 issue of the Source newspaper.  The letter, written by resident Ed Young, hit on a very important theme about the current Nightingale recall.  So, for your reading pleasure we are reprinting Mr. Young’s letter below.  We hope you enjoy it as much as we did!
______________

To the editor: 
Ex-supervisors support senseless recall effort

Published: Friday, April 08, 2011

I may be looking at the world through rose-colored glasses, but I thought former politicians had an unwritten rule: “Thou shalt not criticize thy successor.” It did not bother two former Shelby Township supervisors to criticize the incumbent supervisor for his apparent voting record on hot-button issues that are near and dear to the ex-supervisors. They did not remember their own failures as township supervisors.

One used such foul language in front of a summer hire that would make a GI blush. The end result, the human resources director was terminated while the supervisor just made some bad publicity. How about this one? One of them had a free ride at a condo in Florida owned by a developer. The supervisor got off, but his buddy was reprimanded for accepting gratuities.

There are more, such as wanting to build a palace costing more than $20 million to house a combined court house and police department to be known as the Justice Center. The supervisor was adamant in not wanting the taxpayers to vote on the construction. He went ahead with early preparation that destroyed the beautiful trees behind the administration building, leaving a dust-filled landscape. He ignored the people who live in the area and went on with the destruction of the trees.

If you were the supervisor, would you call the people sitting in the board room "those guys in the peanut gallery"? One ex-supervisor personally intervened in a midnight, one-car crash that involved a board trustee. Not much was made of it, but one might think there may have been a cover-up to avoid embarrassing the trustee, especially since the individual supported the ex-supervisor in wanting the Justice Center. There are more examples of poor judgment and leadership I could point out, but the taxpayers saw through the smoke and mirrors, and voted them out of office.

Unfortunately, recall petitions are with us and in most cases may be justified. However, the recent spate of recalls are allegedly from people who are supporters of the former supervisors and want to see current board members ousted and get their own candidates on board to go back to the old ways of tax, tax and tax some more. The recent studies to reduce costs in the fire and police departments have hit a sore spot in that it shows money can be saved if you budget properly. When your ox has gored you, find ways to make others suffer your pain through senseless recalls which will cause us taxpayers to shoulder the burden.

Bottcher and Maccarone said the recall is not about the towing contract. If it wasn't, why mention it? It seems strange that the owner of the towing company would post a sign on his property inviting the public to sign recall petitions. If you had a sweetheart deal for decades, it is difficult to give up a good thing. It is hard to believe that the towing contract and the chief of police only getting a one-year contract did not have anything to do with police officers circulating petitions of which I have no heartburn. Of all the recall petitions circulated over the years, I find their actions strange, to say the least.

If the recall fails, valuable resources that could be used elsewhere have been squandered to satisfy someone's ego and grab for power.

Ed Young, Shelby Township
______________

We applaud Ed Young, and other like-minded township residents, for their courage to stand up to the Nightingale family’s recall power grab.

Interestingly, in the same issue of the Source, there was another letter favoring the recall, written by (SURPRISE!) Noel Nightingale.  Noel Nightingale is the guy who established a Nightingale family political action committee (PAC).  Since the Nightingales now have a PAC of their own, this poses an obvious question: Will this PAC be used to elect people to public office who will support, and vote for, Nightingale towing?

When you read Noel Nightingale’s nonsense you quickly pick up some key points:
(1) The Nightingales are directly responsible for the recall.
(2) Their recall is all about TOWING.  Everything else mentioned — from the police building, to the DARE program; from claims that Supervisor Stathakis raised taxes (which he has not), to complaints that Supervisor Stathakis has raised township spending (spending has been reduced) — are lies.
(3) The Nightingales have created a political action committee (PAC) named Concerned Citizens of Shelby.  After months of condemning PACs as an evil element of politics, the Nightingale’s have their own evil PAC.  What possible motive could this towing family have for establishing a PAC?
(4) The recall fanatics are quick to condemn others with gossip, innuendo and half-truths.  But when residents fight back with opinions supported by facts, these people cry foul.  The recall groupies believe the First Amendment is terrific just as long as they control the message.
   This warped view of free speech emerged at the Tuesday, April 5th Board of Trustees meeting.  Nightingale “friend” and recall advocate Valarie Alspaugh complained to Supervisor Stathakis about comments being made (on this blog and elsewhere) by those opposing the recall.  Mrs. Alspaugh said Supervisor Stathakis needs to step up and silence those who oppose the recall.  Sorry Val, but the First Amendment does not give any government leader that power, just as it doesn’t stop people like you from lying to support your moronic recall.
(5) The Nightingales don’t like Shelby This Week, hosted by journalist Philip Nye.  Why?  Because he didn’t take the Nightingale family’s side in the recall?  While the Nightingales are quick to praise the Source for its one-sided recall coverage, when they can’t get the story reported how they want on Shelby This Week they attack the messenger.

We have discussed how Source General Manager Chris Troszak censored free speech (see previous Inside Out post).  After the newspaper’s bias was exposed, one Nightingale supporter sent us an interesting e-mail.  Here is what their message said:
“The refusal of this 'Chris Troszak' (more specifically, his business) to publish the cartoon is an exercise of HIS free speech rights - you have NO right to speak in another person or business's privately owned and operated publication.”

This is a very bizarre statement, especially since Chris Troszak is a woman.

So let’s see if we have this correct, shall we?  According to the Nightingales and their recall grunts, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not permit free speech when it comes to private business?  We must have missed that free speech exemption in our Constitutional law class! 

Obviously, the recall maniacs are brain-dead when it comes to what the First Amendment says.  Moreover, they have no understanding of what the word censorship means, or why censoring free speech (as the Source did) because you don’t approve of the message is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The Nightingales (and their Facebook “friends”) think anyone with a different opinion about the recall should sit down and shut up.  Hey Nightingales — yes ALL of you — listen up because we will only say this once:  
• We will not shut up - as you insist!  
• We will not sit down - as you demand!  
• We will not let you control Shelby Township - as you are trying to do with your recall!

Instead, we will continue offering opinions, supported by facts and research, to demonstrate why the recall is a power grab upon our township.  You can complain about us.  You can criticize us.  You can send us nasty e-mails, which get saved for future use.  But you will NEVER silence us!!!!

Until next time...

Recalling Rick Bottcher’s Unprecedented Bungles and Blunders As Township Supervisor

So, former Supervisor Rick Bottcher is eager to jump back into the public spotlight is he?  We wish him luck — he is going to need LOTS of it!

We were surprised to see Rick Bottcher and Skip Maccarone join hands in a so-called “joint” editorial in the March 26th issue of the Source newspaper.  Strange bedfellows indeed!

We are led to believe that this letter was penned after a “chance” meeting between the two former Supervisors.  That claim is highly doubtful.  If there is one thing we have learned about Skip Maccarone, it is that NOTHING in Skip’s world occurs by “chance.”  Everything Maccarone does is a calculated move designed to help one person: Skip Maccarone.

In their letter to the editor, these two publicly support the current Nightingale recall seeking to oust Supervisor Rick Stathakis.  Everyone in Shelby Township knows the author of this letter, and everyone knows it was NOT Bottcher.

When you stop and think about it, their joint attack makes perfect sense (at least to them).  Maccarone lost to Stathakis by an unprecedented 70%-to-30% margin and is itching to get revenge.  As for Bottcher, he is looking for a job and appears to be positioning himself for another run for township office.   God help our township!

Both men have their reasons for despising Supervisor Stathakis, and neither is altruistic.  These two men are trying to force themselves upon us at a time when Shelby Township voters have already told both of them we have had enough and “please go away!”  Either both are deaf to reality or don’t care what people think.  In the wake of their attack, these two are being labeled the Laurel and Hardy of Shelby Township and, just like old black and white movies, they are funny to watch but their time has long past.

Since Bottcher wants to re-enter the political discussion after getting kicked out a decade ago, we feel obliged to showcase just how messed up things were on Bottcher’s watch.  Bottcher is obviously placing his political future in the hands of residents who may have forgotten what things were like when he was running the show, and new residents who have moved in since Bottcher was kicked to the curb by Maccarone.

Winston Churchill once said “those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”  Given Bottcher’s numerous documented failures, taxpayers just can’t afford to have history repeat itself here in Shelby Township.

So, let’s all take a trip down memory lane and recall the worst of Rick Bottcher’s bungles and blunders as Shelby Supervisor.

SHELBY’S “BICKERING BOARD”

When Rick Bottcher was Supervisor, our Board of Trustees was recognized across Macomb County as the “Bickering Board.”  Why?  Primarily because Bottcher went out of his way to constantly engage in petty political battles with other Trustees, as well as residents who came before the Board to speak.

His political insecurity (and paper-thin skin) meant that Rick Bottcher had to be right all the time.  ALL THE TIME!  Residents got sick of his attitude and anointed him King of the “Bickering Board.

Bottcher’s lack of professionalism was a hallmark of his administration.  Bottcher was, without question, the most unprofessional and lackluster leader Shelby has ever had.  This trait was a carryover from his years as a Trustee.  As Trustee, Bottcher loved being the lone wolf.  He thrived on the attention it got him.  He was known as “Shelby’s Pandering Trustee” as he constantly played to the audience for applause and/or approval.  While his island mentality may have furthered his political goal as a Trustee, the luster faded real fast as Supervisor.

THE NOTORIOUS BOTTCHER-DEVELOPER FLORIDA TRIP

Township residents gasped when Bottcher accepted an all-expenses-paid trip to Florida with a local developer.  At the time of this trip, Bottcher’s developer buddy had received rezoning approval for a Wal-Mart on 23 Mile Road and another rezoning plan at the southwest corner of 24 and Van Dyke.  This politician/developer junket had everyone asking why Bottcher would take such a trip?

We all watched as this subject came up during a televised Board meeting.  As you will see from the Macomb Daily article at right, this Florida trip was unprecedented for a township Supervisor (click on the graphic for a larger view).   It was also unprecedented the way that Clerk Terri Kowal’s husband took Bottcher to task about the Florida trip during a televised meeting.  This was a scandal of unprecedented proportions, and showcased Bottcher’s lack of judgment and common sense.

Bottcher admitted to the trip, but never came up with a plausible explanation of why he took it.  He became agitated by the barrage of questions.  Now that he wants to push himself back into the public eye by openly criticizing Supervisor Rick Stathakis, we all need to recall just how cozy Rick Bottcher was with certain developers.

PUTTING POLITICIANS BEFORE VETERANS 

Developers were not his only problem.  It was also unprecedented the way that Bottcher royally screwed up the unveiling of Shelby’s new Veterans Memorial in 2000.  This incident became memorable not for the monument itself, but for the way Bottcher “botched” it up.

Instead of including the names of veterans killed in service to our nation, Bottcher decided that the only names to be inscribed on the monument would be the members of the Veterans Committee – of course with his name appearing at the top of that list.  When this was brought to his attention as a bad decision, Bottcher brushed it off.  “We did the work, we deserve the credit,” is what he said.

This blunder was an embarssment to our township.  It was discussed on local talk radio, covered in newspapers and TV reports, and even earned a public rebuke on CSPAN.  “Memorial remembers politicians, not vets,” is how the Associated Press reported the story.  “Memorial prompts uproar” is what the Saginaw News said.

Meanwhile, here is how the Macomb Daily covered the story:
_____________________________

“Veterans memorial draws fire in Shelby Township.”
Frank DeFrank - Macomb Daily Staff Writer, June 04, 2000 

Shelby Township's new veterans memorial has turned into a battleground.

Some residents and officials are upset that the monument does not list township veterans who died in service to the United States, but does include the names of seven members of the Veterans Memorial Committee, including four who are candidates for township offices.

Supervisor Richard Bottcher, who organized the committee, called the criticism “petty politics” that “tarnishes” the efforts of the group.

“Where are the veterans?” said township resident W.C. “Dub” Hearon.  “All these guys are running for office.”

Phil Randazzo won a Purple Heart during his service in Vietnam in 1967-68 and survived the Tet Offensive.  He attended Sunday’s dedicated and was offended at both the absence of veterans names and the inclusion of committee members.

“These people don't belong on there,” Randazzo said.  “I don’t even belong on there. I didn’t die.  That’s for the dead.”

Ralph Maccarone, a candidate for Shelby Township supervisor, also joined the fray.

“It’s outrageous,” Maccarone said.  “This isn’t a memorial.  This is a political poster.”
_____________________________

The Shelby-Utica News also got into the action.  Their front page story “Shelby’s Veteran’s Monument brews controversy” kicked the discussion up a notch.  Here is some of what the newspaper wrote about this Bottcher blunder:
___________

A few days after Shelby residents gathered on May 28 at the dedication of the new Veteran’s Monument, the memorial, meant to honor those who fought for American freedom, has become an item mired in political controversy and overflowing with emotion.

In the days following the unveiling of the monument, several Shelby residents and officials have come forward to question why no individual veterans’ names appear on the monument.  They also question why the names of the Veterans Memorial Committee, who raised $50,000 to erect the monument, are displayed on the back.

The solemn subject matter, combined with the politics of an election year, has generated a hot debate.

Ralph Maccarone, candidate for Shelby Township Supervisor, has also voiced opposition to the monument.

“As soon as practical after taking office I shall form a committee to raise the money to properly inscribe the names deserving inscription on this monument,” Maccarone said in a press release.

Bottcher said if Maccarone is concerned about the monument, he should have gotten involved with it.

“It’s unfortunate when people want to make something like this political,” Bottcher said.
_____________________________
 
The unfortunate aspect of this Veterans’ Monument mess was that Rick Bottcher refused to see the ridicule that his stupid decision would bring to our township.  All he could see was his name at the top of the monument — something most residents (and all veterans) found appalling!

Reacting to the negative publicity, and trying to cover his political behind, Bottcher ordered a plaque be installed on the monument to cover the committee members’ names.  Nice try, but by then the damage to our township, and to Bottcher’s reputation, had been done.

WHEN DOES AN ICE RINK BECOME A SINK HOLE?

Talk about unprecedented!  It was unprecedented when Bottcher used taxpayer equipment to help his friends with a recreational request.  We are talking about Rick Bottcher’s demand that a township fire truck be enlisted to construct an ice rink.

On December 23, 1999, Rick Bottcher ordered two on-duty Shelby firefighters from Station #4 to go to a friend’s house for a favor.  What was Bottcher’s favor?  The firefighters would be used to pump water onto a privately-owned vacant lot to build a neighborhood ice rink!  This was simply poor judgment, made even dumber by using on-duty firefighters.

Instead of being ready to answer calls from residents in need, these two firefighters were busy answering a call to help build an ice rink? We support recreation for our children, but this decision by Bottcher was a complete and utter misuse of firefighter resources.

However, that wasn’t the end of the story.  In the process of flooding the land for this ice rink, a water pump on the fire truck broke.  Fixing this pump cost taxpayers hundreds of dollars.  Then, what made this the ultimate act of stupidity, a few days after Bottcher’s “ice rink” was constructed, the weather warmed up and the ice melted, creating a mud hole/sink hole.  Rick Bottcher “botched” it again!

FACTS SIMPLY DON’T MATTER TO RICK BOTTCHER
Rick Bottcher’s four years in office was a miserable time for our township.  Bottcher was so out of touch that many times he made things up as he went along.  Unfortunately, the facts didn’t matter.  Bottcher’s behavior prompted Frank DeFrank to write in the Monday, February 21, 2000 issue of the Macomb Daily: “Facts take a beating in Shelby.”

During his failed re-election campaign in 2000, Bottcher paid for an ad in the Source newspaper.  The ad mislead residents into believing that the Shelby Patrol Officers Association was endorsing Bottcher’s re-election.  In response, the Shelby police association published an ad in the August 8, 2000 Macomb Daily to set the record straight.  Click the ad on the right to see a larger version and judge for yourself.  Should we believe anything Rick Bottcher says or does?

Mr. Bottcher didn’t care about facts.  His only concern was nit-picking and engaging in unnecessary political battles to try and make himself look good.  Despite his best efforts, Bottcher’s blunders always made headlines, and usually for the wrong reasons.

THE TALE OF THE “TAPE”

When Skip Maccarone began his first day on the job as Supervisor, he immediately noticed something was wrong.  His office was empty.  No files.  No books.  Nothing!  “Where oh where had the township files gone?  Oh where or where could they be!”

This was yet another UNPRECEDENTED Bottcher blunder.  Here are some excerpts from the Source newspaper dated December 11, 2000:

Officials search for files
By JON OTTMAN
Source Staff Writer

Like a page out of Old Mother Hubbard, newly elected Supervisor Ralph Maccarone had a problem when he moved into his office.

When he got there, the desk was bare.

Following the departure of Rick Bottcher as supervisor, a routine inventory of the office revealed the contents of several files were missing, Maccarone said.

“On several issues of township business, we were unable to find a paper trail,” he said. “Those papers were to have been deposited in the offices of the supervisor.  I found the desk drawers completely empty.”

At least nine folders were reportedly left without their contents, including folders involving negotiations, departmental goals, River Bends and other Shelby Township parks, personnel issues, interoffice memos, papers related to the proposed Shelby Center development at 24 Mile and Van Dyke and paperwork on township dealings with the Ford Motor Land Development Corp. the current owners of the historic Packard Proving Grounds.

“When I look at the volume of paperwork that is going through the office on a daily basis it is unbelievable that I could come in and find no citizen correspondence or interdepartmental correspondence or correspondence for in-progress projects.  Not one paper on the desk,” Maccarone said.

Not having files has created some operational difficulties, he said.

Bottcher said said any files dealing with negotiations, contracts or lawsuits, were kept by his administrative secretary, parks information by the parks and rec department, assessing information with the assessor and planning issues like the Shelby Center, with planning.

Bottcher said some materials were thrown away, but those were files that he believed were four to five years old and obsolete.

According to police Capt. Glenn Socia, when the files were discovered missing just prior to Maccarone’s swearing-in Nov. 20, the supervisor’s office notified the clerk who then requested the door be taped off with police crime scene tape as a precaution until officials could decide how to handle the situation.

TAXPAYERS PAY FOR BOTTCHER’S INDISCRETION

Just months before the 2000 election, Rick Bottcher was slapped with a sexual harassment lawsuit by a female township employee.  As a result, it was reported that Shelby Township taxpayers had to pay upwards of $17,000 to settle this unprecedented, and shameful, lawsuit.

This lawsuit was the nail in Bottcher’s political coffin.

=====

These are but a few of Rick Bottcher’s unprecedented and memorable blunders.  Now, despite all this, Bottcher wants us to trust him?  He wants us to believe what he says?  He wants us to think that he understands the issues of our township?  He wants us to think he knows better?

Beware Shelby taxpayers:  Rick Bottcher is back and is looking for a job!

Let’s not reward his past failures by giving him another taxpayer-funded position on the Board of Trustees.  Shelby Township residents deserve better than this.

Until next time...

Advisor Source Newspaper Publisher Chris Troszak Shows Bias By Censoring Free Speech

CENSORSHIP is the suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.

Please take note of the two words “media outlet” because they are central to this INSIDE OUT blog post.

Free Speech is a valuable right that we all enjoy in a free society. Our founding fathers made this the FIRST AMENDMENT because they wanted to make sure the people had the right to speak his or her mind freely (verbally or in writing) without fear of retribution or punishment.  They wisely wanted to make sure America set the standard for individual liberties and freedoms. They also wanted to make it perfectly clear that no government, media outlet or other controlling body would have the power to tell people what they can, and cannot, say or publish.

Reporters argue First Amendment all the time in order to get the inside “scoop” on a particular story. They use this to protect against their voices being silenced by people who may disagree with a particular story or opinion. They also claim First Amendment protections when a story may anger some people and yet deserves to be printed. Free speech doesn’t mean we will always agree, but it certainly gives us the right to disagree without censorship.

Everyone believes that our cherished First Amendment rights MUST always be protected. Everyone, it seems, except Advisor Source newspaper publisher Chris Troszak.

It has come to our attention that not once, but twice, Chris Troszak refused to publish an editorial cartoon that was paid for by a concerned citizen. This person wanted to express his views about a current township issue. But when he asked Troszak to publish his cartoon, she flatly refused.  THAT IS CENSORSHIP!

Why would she do that? Why would Chris Troszak blatantly violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? As a “media outlet” she is expressly prohibited from doing so. Does her censorship have something to do with her political bias for or against particular township leaders?

In one of our earlier Inside Out posts, we exposed how Mrs. Troszak publicly affiliated herself with the township recall group Save Shelby. When she was confronted about this, she claimed innocence and said she honestly had no idea what it was about.

Troszak then sent e-mails to us demanding that her name be removed from our blog about who is supporting the recall.  She explained that she would never get involved in any political campaign. Even though we had solid proof of her complicity with the Save Shelby recall gang, she denied it and started making demands on us. 

Despite statements to the contrary, Mrs. Troszak has gotten involved.  More directly, she has shown her clear bias against Supervisor Stathakis and in support of the recall.  She publicly joined forces with the people who are calling for the ouster of certain township officials. Whether she did so out of personal feelings or political affiliations doesn’t matter. All that matters to Shelby Township residents is that she did!

Troszak’s first act of censorship occurred a few weeks ago when she said NO to an editorial cartoon showing the recall addicts trying to drag our township backwards. That cartoon (funny and to the point) later did appear in the Shelby-Utica News — an obvious supporter of the First Amendment.  When we reproduced the cartoon on the The Inside Out we had no idea what was going on behind the scenes and how controversial this cartoon had become.

What Mrs. Troszak and the Source did in blocking this free speech editorial was WRONG.

Unfortunately, some people just never learn.  A few days ago another editorial cartoon was presented to the Source for publication. Once again, Chris Troszak shook her head and sternly said NO. This cartoon showed caricatures of Skip Maccarone and Rick Bottcher on a recall parade float.  We have reprinted the cartoon on the right so you can see for yourself what the Source refused to print. Click on the graphic for a larger perspective.  We thank one of our readers for e-mailing us the cartoon.  As you can see, it reprints much better as an original graphic than having us scan the document.

The cartoon was in response to an editorial that appeared in the Source one week earlier signed by Skip Maccarone and Rick Bottcher.  In their joint diatribe, these two publicly called for the ouster of Supervisor Stathakis, and listed their interpretation of why Stathakis should be recalled. Although they tried to make their attack appear legitimate, it actually came across as a “sour grapes” personal vendetta by Maccarone, and a desperate attempt by Bottcher to get attention.

This Source censorship scandal surfaced on the Friday, April 1, 2011 issue of Shelby This Week.  Trustee Michael Flynn discussed the cartoon and explained how the Source would not run it.  Interestingly, for three consecutive weeks prior, the newspaper happily published attacks, both letters and ads, against Supervisor Stathakis.  Two editorials, including the one signed by Maccarone and Bottcher, and an ad from the Save Shelby gang that labeled Supervisor Stathakis a liar and a crook.  While they were eager to attack Stathakis over and over and over, they wouldn’t publish one editorial cartoon to show the “other” side.  Is that what the Source considers objective and independent journalism?  Or, perhaps they are actually subjective journalism with a political preference?

As reported on Shelby This Week, following her initial rejection of this editorial cartoon, Troszak must have had second thoughts.  A short time later she called the artist and said that she would agree to run the cartoon ONLY if the artist agreed to make editorial modifications and adjustments that met her approval.

WTF!!!!!!!!   A “media outlet” trying to tell someone what they can and cannot print?  A “media outlet” trying to censor an advertisement paid for by a concerned citizen?  A “media outlet” demanding that changes be made to accommodate their personal likes and dislikes?  Thomas Jefferson would probably have a thing or two to say about Troszak’s anti-democratic conduct.  Does Troszak tell other potential clients of the newspaper that they can run their ads only after receiving her stamp of approval, or making changes that agree with her personal views?  Is this fair and balanced?

The Inside Out applauds Shelby This Week host Phil Nye for taking the Source to task about this.  Even he sees it for what it is.  He tried to get an explanation for the censorship, but Mrs. Troszak declined to speak to him on camera about it.   Gee, we wonder why?  Instead, the newspaper’s attorney gave Nye a rambling and legalistic response, which even Nye admitted did not answer his important question about why the newspaper was engaging in such blatant censorship.

There is an old saying in journalism circles that “freedom of the press belongs to those who own it.”  In this instance, since Troszak feels like she owns the paper, she decides what is, and is not, covered by the First Amendment.  Evidently, what Chris Troszak is actually saying here is: “I’m sorry, but I will only print editorials, and editorial cartoons, that agree with my views or opinions.”   Is that what the First Amendment to the Constitution says? Is this what a “media outlet” like the Source should be doing?

Why would Chris Troszak take a one-sided attitude about the recall?  Have her personal feelings about Supervisor Stathakis, and her close friendship with the Nightingle family and the Save Shelby gang (the people behind the recall) clouded her judgment?

Considering all the discussion about freedom right now, and especially how people across the globe are fighting for democracy, who would ever think that we would be having a discussion in the United States of America, let alone Shelby Township, concerning legitimate Free Speech rights.  Censorship and bias in news reporting is certainly to be expected among Middle Eastern tyrants, communist leaders, and Third World dictators.  But in the United States of America in the 21st Century??????

Rest assured that the Source has not heard the end of this.  Such efforts to deprive township residents of their free speech protections, and muzzle the First Amendment, deserves national recognition.  We pledge to do our part to make sure the newspaper, and more importantly Chris Troszak, gets the honors and awards they both rightly deserve for trying to muzzle democracy!

Until next time...stand up against tyranny and support FREE SPEECH and the First Amendment!