January - I have finally gotten a chance to listen to the last 2 Board Meetings. In January a consent agreement with Bisco's was discussed. Without any information being given to those in attendance, our supervisor asked everyone if they thought the board should approve it. How can anyone agree or disagree without the needed information. After a poll was taken of the audience (18 in favor, 2 against) the Board voted. By a 3 - 2 vote the consent agreement was turned down.
February - Our supervisor spent more than 5 minutes talking about how bad it is to have such disagreement on the Board. He said that he believes that if they were doing their jobs, the votes would almost always be 5 - 0. I guess that I must disagree. If the board is always in 100%agreement, I think there would be something wrong. Each member should have thoughts of their own. Even husbands and wives do not always agree. Healthy debate is a good thing. Secondly, I wonder where all this harmony amongst the board was for the last 4 years? Talk to those that have been there and hear that almost every vote had been 3 - 2 in favor of what the supervisor proposed. Therefore, I believe that Mr. Rushing's new found spirit of togetherness has more to do with the fact that he has been on the losing side of some votes now.
After bemoaning the fact that the Board has not been agreeing, again a consent agreement for Bisco's was brought to the table for discussion. It was said that the board had received the latest proposal less than 2 hours before the meeting. When it was suggested that perhaps this should be tabled because most of the members had not had time to read or digest the contents, our supervisor plugged forward. He insisted that a vote be taken to accept this agreement (based on Mr. Birkenshaws attorney telling everyone it was the best thing to do). When this agreement did not pass, our supervisor held another vote on the agreement not passed in January. Although this again failed, I wonder why he would even bring it up a second time?
I've had other residents tell me that sometimes it seems that he (Dave) works for Mr. Birkenshaw, not Riley Township. Maybe more people need to come to these meetings and decide for themself.
UPCOMING MEETING..
17 years ago
3 comments:
I have heard that Mr. Rushing has been in communication with Mr. Birkenshaw's attorney without the township attorney present. Isn't that rather unheard of. I have also heard that Mr. Rushing has offered to pay for Birkenshaw's site plan and that Linda Waddy asked him if he felt there was a conflict of interest. Mr. Rushing didn't think he was in conflict. I am also wondering why Mr. Rushing will not reappoint Tom Miller to PC. Could it have something to do with Mr. Rushing's opinion of Mr. Miller. Mr. Rushing has been heard to express dislike of Mr. Miller at PC meeting while Mr. Rushing was sitting with the public during a PC meeting. This sounds like Mr. Rushing has personal issues with Mr. Miller. Would this not lead to a discrimination or defamation lawsuit against the Township?
Rushing is trying real hard to get a agreement for Birkenshaw. The question should be, HOW MUCH IS BIRKENSHAW PAYING RUSHING?????
An article in The Times Herald (5/14/09) stated the consent agreement has been signed. Legal fees to the township are $70,000; $50,000 more than the $20,000 budgeted for legal fees. Now services such as stones for our roads and the spraying of calcium chloride will be reduced because of the amount spent on court costs. Great! Two days ago I was in the township offices complaining about the dust clouds created from grading that are so thick you cannot see in front of yourself. And, the dust carries for hundreds of feet causing breathing problems. The answer I got was pay for the spraying myself which costs $150 per application and it covers 500 feet of road frontage. Wonderful! Our tax dollars not at work...politics as usual!
Post a Comment