Shelby Township residents who had the stamina to endure the marathon Township Board of Trustees meeting on Tuesday, September 6th were treated to an evening of memories.The meeting itself was long, boring, mostly uneventful and, at times, emotional, especially when it came to discussion of the 41A District Court. Given the length of the meeting — five hours — and the host of issues discussed and voted on, it is evident that regardless of one’s personal feelings about individual Board members, our elected Trustees are doing the people’s work.
It was certainly a fun meeting to watch. The Save Shelby group was on display once again, and there were a few moments which stick out as examples of Save Shelby’s disconnect with reality.
During the meeting, Trustee Lisa Manzella, a Save Shelby charter member, looked flustered and frustrated. However, it was during the 41A District Court resolution discussion that Manzella seemed completely disconnected with reality.
As Trustees discussed a resolution concerning the possible relocation of the Court, Manzella said that she has always supported the court staying in Shelby Township and “nothing I have seen has changed my mind.” Manzella went further saying, to our amazement, “I never supported a $20 million court building.” WHAT!!!
You heard correctly. Mrs. Manzella claimed, publicly and on the record, that she never supported a $20 million building to house a new court. Cue Rod Serling … we have just entered the Twilight Zone of Save Shelby stupidity.
Manzella is playing grammatical tricks. She may not have supported a $20 million “court building” but she definitely supported a $20 million “justice center.” That is a difference without a distinction. We all remember that expensive facility that would have been constructed with new bonds paid for by the people without a vote of the people. That building, according to financial forecasts, would have bankrupted our township, or at least required huge tax increases. Skip Maccarone said no public vote would be taken on the new justice center, and Manzella agreed.
If you want to check Manzella’s public record, read our October 10, 2010 Inside Out.
Not only did Manzella want to bond for a $20 million justice center, she was the most outspoken Board member in support of bonding for an entire $49 million “campus.” She said the township could easily afford to spend this money with no financial impact. Furthermore, Manzella wanted to build these new buildings with new bonds/taxes collected without a public vote.
Manzella may think her slick trick of attempting to rewrite history worked, but she’s wrong. She was called out about her revisionist comment by Supervisor Stathakis, who has always opposed bonding without a public vote. Caught in a lie, Manzella got red in the face (at least it appeared so on TV) and, in her follow-up rant, blamed the Supervisor for misrepresenting facts. The only misrepresentation of facts on the court, or anything else, is coming directly from Lisa Manzella’s mouth.
The resolution on the 41A District Court passed. Taxpayers want to thank Supervisor Rick Stathakis, Treasurer Paul Viar, and Trustees Mike Flynn and Paula Filar for making it clear that they support a public vote. We also thank Trustee Doug Wozniak, because even though he did not support the resolution we know he supports public participation in this discussion.
As for the other two, let’s just say ......................... on second thought, we better not!
Next up, Shelby resident Brent Freeman. Mr. Freeman regularly attends televised meetings to challenge the Board and question decisions on issues, many of which he apparently knows nothing about. Mr. Freeman’s catch phrase has previously been “I’m confused” and he has said that repeatedly. However, at the September 6th Board meeting we heard a new Freemanism: “I’m disappointed.”
Mr. Freeman was upset that he did not get reappointed to his volunteer, non-paid, part-time position on the Shelby Sidewalk Committee. Poor Brent! Mr. Freeman’s gross display of self-serving politics was surprising, but not unexpected. At least twice during his remarks it appeared as though Mr. Freeman was going to cry. He called out Supervisor Stathakis and Trustee Wozniak as two people that he is “disappointed” with for not reappointing him.
Given his alleged political ambitions — rumor is Freeman will be the Save Shelby slate’s candidate for Treasurer in 2012 — you would think he would understand how bad his lecture appeared to those who were watching.
Brent Freeman does not support recruiting new people into the governmental process. Or, perhaps more accurately, Freeman welcomes new people as long as he gets to stay in a position for as long as he wants. Freeman said that since he was a member of the Sidewalk Committee he should remain for as long as he likes. This captures the very essence of what Save Shelby stands for. Consider this:
• The Nightingale family, key supporters of Save Shelby, gets upset when the Board wants to introduce a new policy of bids for towing services. They cry about it at Board meetings, condemn elected officials and launch a recall to force their will on the rest of us. Clearly, the Nightingales feel entitled to the towing work and don’t want any changes.
• The Shelby police union, advocates of Save Shelby, gets upset when information about their pensions is made public. They cry about it at Board meetings, condemn elected officials and launch a recall to force their will on the rest of us. Clearly, the police union feels entitled to keep the pension benefits as they always have been and don’t want any changes made.
• Brent Freeman, a stanch supporter of Save Shelby, gets upset when he is not reappointed to his part-time, volunteer, non-paid committee position. He cries about it at Board meetings, condemns elected officials, and perhaps will go file petitions for another recall (heck, anything is possible). Clearly, Freeman feels entitled to his position and doesn’t want any changes or new people involved.
And the Save Shelby craziness keeps going ... and going ... and going!
The jaw-dropper of the evening, however, came at the end of the meeting. Just as we were about to fall asleep, Treasurer Paul Viar asked for the floor to answer some comments made about him at the August 16th Board meeting. We have included excerpts of Mr. Viar’s statement below.
====================
Excerpts from Treasurer Paul Viar’s Remarks to Shelby Taxpayers
— Shelby Township Board of Trustees meeting - Tuesday, Sept. 6. 2011
I would like to respond to comments made by some people associated with a group that calls itself Save Shelby. We have heard how this group claims to want to Save Shelby. Township residents who have called me are demanding to know what these people wish to Save Shelby from?
We get an idea about this group’s intentions from a comment posted on the Save Shelby Facebook page, and I quote: “When Township leaders aren’t smart or wise enough to effectively lead, they bully those around them or try to discredit them. I call it “bully politics”, you know kind of like what dictators do. So maybe it is time to “overthrow” the government!”
EDITOR’S NOTE: MR. VIAR POINTED OUT THAT THE PERSON WHO MADE THAT OUTLANDISH STATEMENT IS LINDA MACCARONE, WIFE OF SKIP MACCARONE.
We previously exposed Mrs. Maccarone’s revolutionary rant in our June 8, 2011 Inside Out “Save Shelby’s Social Network Smear Exposed; Residents Rise Up Against Ridiculous Recall.”
CONTINUING MR. VIAR’S STATEMENT...
• Do those involved with Save Shelby, people like Mrs. Maccarone, who advocate overthrowing the government, want to go back to the days when the township would burden taxpayers with a $49 million bond issue for a campus?
• Does this group want to return to 2007, when the township was forced to take more than $2 million from our reserve funds, to balance the budget because of overspending by the previous administration?
• Do they want to concede to every union demand, and not ask employee unions for shared sacrifices during tough economic times?
• Do they want to sit quietly and not attempt to correct our township’s retiree pension situation?
• Do they want to return to the practice of replacing every retiring government employee with a new hire, thus never reducing payroll costs?
The Save Shelby plan would mean higher taxes and it would mean giving control of the township to the special interests who support their group.
This Board has negotiated tens of thousands of dollars in savings in employee health care costs. We have balanced the township budget three years in a row, without raising taxes and without using any reserve funds. Today, our township is operating with 18 fewer employees than we had in 2008. We cut our workforce through attrition, without cutting services. We have maintained essential township services, police, fire and EMS, while reducing the overall cost of those services.
Shelby taxpayers are asking is this what the Save Shelby crowd wishes to save our township from? Responsible, effective, accountable and, conservative government?
Treasurer Paul Viar raises a valid point. Since the Save Shelby gang has expressed an interest in controlling the Township Board, and since they say they want to take Shelby in a new direction, which direction would that be?
- Since we currently have a conservative Board, and Save Shelby wants something “different”, does that mean a more liberal Board?
- Since we currently have a Board that has reduced township spending, and Save Shelby wants something “different”, does this mean their group will increase township spending?
- Since we currently have a Board that has held the line on taxes, and since Save Shelby wants something “different” for our township, does that mean their group has a plan to raise taxes to support their agenda of higher spending?
- Since we currently have a Board that has reduced the cost of township employee health care, and since Save Shelby wants something “different” for our township, does this mean their group wants to go back to the days of ever-rising health care costs?
- Since we currently have a Board that wants to get serious about addressing our township’s unsustainable union pension program, and since Save Shelby wants something “different” for our township, does this mean their group will take the union’s side in support of higher pensions?
Residents demand to know what exactly is the Save Shelby message? “We can do a better job?” “We will cut the budget more?” “We will get tougher with the unions?” “We will do a better job of address township health care and pension costs?”
Shelby taxpayers who see the whole picture about what has been happening over the last few months with name-calling, recall threats, and rude behavior at Board meetings, now understand the real agenda and motivations here. The Save Shelby plan is not a taxpayer-friendly plan, and this is why people are turning off to what they have to say.
If the Save Shelby gang succeeds in their goal to “overthrow the government” of Shelby Township in 2012, then the special interests will win, unions will win, and the big spenders will win! Shelby taxpayers will LOSE BIG! Is that a risk that you are willing to take?
Until next time...
- Since we currently have a conservative Board, and Save Shelby wants something “different”, does that mean a more liberal Board?
- Since we currently have a Board that has reduced township spending, and Save Shelby wants something “different”, does this mean their group will increase township spending?
- Since we currently have a Board that has held the line on taxes, and since Save Shelby wants something “different” for our township, does that mean their group has a plan to raise taxes to support their agenda of higher spending?
- Since we currently have a Board that has reduced the cost of township employee health care, and since Save Shelby wants something “different” for our township, does this mean their group wants to go back to the days of ever-rising health care costs?
- Since we currently have a Board that wants to get serious about addressing our township’s unsustainable union pension program, and since Save Shelby wants something “different” for our township, does this mean their group will take the union’s side in support of higher pensions?
Residents demand to know what exactly is the Save Shelby message? “We can do a better job?” “We will cut the budget more?” “We will get tougher with the unions?” “We will do a better job of address township health care and pension costs?”
Shelby taxpayers who see the whole picture about what has been happening over the last few months with name-calling, recall threats, and rude behavior at Board meetings, now understand the real agenda and motivations here. The Save Shelby plan is not a taxpayer-friendly plan, and this is why people are turning off to what they have to say.
If the Save Shelby gang succeeds in their goal to “overthrow the government” of Shelby Township in 2012, then the special interests will win, unions will win, and the big spenders will win! Shelby taxpayers will LOSE BIG! Is that a risk that you are willing to take?
Until next time...
No comments:
Post a Comment