Minerva Park Community Network and Forum

Though this website has been online for a few months now, I'd like to share the link for residents:

http://minervapark.net/

This is currently hosted by Charles Legg, Minerva Park Council Member.

Of the continuation of the forum, which has yet to go live (hopefully it will be up soon) he says:

Working on Website - Friday, January 20, 2012

Since I have been appointed to Council and the negativity of the Walking in Minerva Park blog, I have decided to continue work on this website. I will keep everyone posted over the next few weeks.  - Charles Legg

Though this blog, Walking in Minerva Park, is seen as negative, I hadn't intended for that to be the only perception of it. Of course there is negativity brought about by the topics posted here, it's politics. But, I still feel that this venue is needed to dispense information that the Village Council and/or Administration doesn't seem to actively dispense to residents. 

Unfortunately most of the things posted here do have a negative reception, but I believe a lot of that reception comes from the actions of council themselves.  If council did things in an open, inviting way, the negativity might decrease; and perhaps some posts would start being positive off the bat. I have seen little progress since I've started watching the goings on in the Community Building, and I have to wonder why, obviously it's because "we're so negative". It seems when opinions are different than their own or their own intentions, they are seen as negative by council or others in the village.

 

The lack of interest in this may be seen in the Rules of Council for 2012, where Citizens Comments are restricted from "anger expressed". How can you ask to limit residents from expressing their anger with something? Surely residents can be expected to be respectful and safe in their expressions, but a rule stating anger is not to be expressed shows why this blog is needed. 

Dear council, perhaps you yourselves should follow this rule as well. A certain council member has been known to slam on the table when disagreeing with another. "Killing a bug" irrationally, slamming the table and stamping feet while disagreeing with what another is saying? Maybe council should follow their rules for comments as council members, not just imposing such strict rules on citizens who chose to speak up.

Negative or not, this blog gives another outlet for residents to get information, share their information, or feelings and opinions, negative, positive, or otherwise. Those that come to this blog and take the time to read it make that decision themselves. They are responsible for where they invest themselves through the credibility of their sources. The Villager is certainly one-sided, much more so than this blog is by nature. 

Residents can't even have something published to the Villager (community newsletter) without it being approved by Sharon Bierman, Council member, and Villager Advertising, Design, and Layout coordinator. Among other lines of editing in the MPCA. How is this not biased?

I will be interested to see how Mr. Legg's forum is run. Commentators have to have an account, which in itself is a good idea in ways but will also deter some from commenting, or from commenting honestly and openly. I also wonder how the administrative privileges will be used.

Though this blog currently limits residents to commenting on posts written by myself (they can't start topics themselves) I do not approve comments before they go live. I do have the ability to delete comments, but reserve this for when it is requested or blatantly necessary, as outlined in the Comment Policies, above. These deletions will be documented, and have been. So far, the most common deletion necessary is simply that of formatting errors or duplicate publications. I am not here to moderate or babysit comments, though sometimes I have felt they've been somewhat personal or non-productive, the outlet of commenting is still of value for some residents.

The more opportunities we have to speak up as residents, without censorship, the better. Minerva Park doesn't seem to be doing much for that these days, hence why this blog was started, almost a year ago.

January Coffee With Council

Minerva Park Council 

is hosting

Coffee with Council

Monday 7pm

January 23, 2012

(Tomorrow Night)

This is to include a speaker from ODNR about our Goose Population.

I hope to see more residents there!

Conversations with Citizens/Elected Officials

Word has it that officers have been ordered not to speak to residents for a "prolonged period" unless it is specifically official business. No fraternizing with the residents. There is a legitimate purpose for this in that officers aren't being ineffective and talking to residents while they should be patrolling, however it takes a lot of the community out of it and makes the officers feel almost inaccessible, or removed from the community.

Here's a copy of the memo (Public Record)  from the Police Chief on Conversing with Citizens/Elected Officials

I do believe the Chief has the safety of the Village at heart, and in speaking with her she is courteous and professional. It seems to me, though, that she expects to be the only path of communication between residents and the police force. Either this be of her own accord of that of the Mayor. Yes, this could quell untrue rumors, but in our small community, it seems like it's more to keep us under the impression the Villager gives. Everything's peachy here. It looks like it, until you start asking questions no one wants to answer.

If I were a veteran officer, accustomed to being friendly with all residents, I would be disheartened to have received this. Things aren't the way they used to be around here. I'm almost afraid to be friendly with the officers myself, for fear they could be reprimanded for it.

Or maybe I'm just wrong and this is completely necessary. You have the order in front of you, take from it what you wish.

Executive Sessions

I found this post in Drafts from August, and felt it should still be published. I haven't updated the numbers or data since its original drafting.




Since January 2011, there have been at least five executive sessions held with the mayor and some or all of council.

I say at least because I (a resident) almost didn't know about two of these executive sessions. They were held during Safety Committee Meetings, which were posted on the bulletin board in front of the community building a short time before the meeting was to be held. I don't doubt that they were within the extent of the law because they were likely there 24 hours beforehand (the time set by the Ohio Revised Code), however they were likely posted not much earlier than that. Some committee meetings are planned months in advance, the dates brought up in regular council meetings and work sessions, however these were not.

The following is a list of the dates on which executive sessions have been held:

April 9 - During a council work session, involving "personnel matters", the Police Chief Kim Nuesse and Clerk-Treasurer Suzanne Coulter were invited.

May 7 - During a council work session, the Police Chief and Clerk-Treasurer were invited.

July 18 - During a Safety Committee Meeting, inviting the Police Chief and legal counsel Jennifer Croghan

July 25 - During a Safety Committee Meeting, inviting the Police Chief and legal counsel Jennifer Croghan

August 8 - During a regular Council Meeting, inviting the Police Chief and legal counsel Gene Hollins

All of these executive sessions are said to have involved "personnel matters" involving the police. Some, also, are said to involve pending litigation.

As she reported in the August Villager, since Nuesse became chief, two officers have resigned, and though she listed one terminated, it has become two as of July 18th.

Something is going on with our police force, and it doesn't look as if it's good. I whole-heartedly support our police in Minerva Park, but it seems there have been some issues since at least April, when these executive sessions started popping up so frequently.



[As of 1/15/12, the executive sessions continue, due to pending litigation and personnel matters. Like clockwork there are issues needed to be discussed each month, at nearly each meeting I have witnessed.]

Letter to Council via Tony Benedetti

The following was presented to Council at the January 2012 Council Meeting.

Clicking on the photos will bring up larger images to read. The body of Tony's letter reads as follows:

1/9/12

TO; Minerva Park Council

FROM; Tony Benedetti

I have been coming before Council for more than 3 years now. I have pointed out many areas in which the Villages policies, procedures and understanding of the law, haven't been what it should be. I feel it is very difficult to try to correct the many problems the Village is now facing when Council allows a 3 minute presentation per month. I was told by the Council President that " Citizens Comments" was the time for Council to listen to the Residents. I would like to know when Council is going to start addressing the issues that I have brought before them. Below is a list of the things I have been asking about.

1. When and how should a Resident get a "Home Occupation Permit" 

(Remembering the answer should come from the code book, not "That's how we have done it in the past")

2. What is a "area improved for vehicular use" (MP code 1273.10(d))

(I believe the answer can be found in MP code 1282.06(a)) and doesn't this apply to all driveways and parking lots.)

3. Are you allowed to raise chickens in a "Residential District"

(The Code Enforcement Officer has decided you are allowed to)

4. Does the Mayor of Minerva Park have the authority to issue an " Administrative "Order"" and what law gives the Mayor this power.

5. Do you need a Soliciting Permit to put business fliers on mailboxes, if so why hasn't the people passing out the "Bags" every week been made to get a Soliciting Permit.

6. When do you need to get a Building Permit.

(The way I understand it the code requires zoning approval But there is no mention of when you need to get a Building Permit. Please include which code and the number that applies.)

7. The page of the MP Code covering Part time employees compensation is missing, what is being done about this. 

8. If Chief Nuesse provided a copy of the Erie County Court judgement dated 8/10/10 to the Mayor when she first applied for the Chief position why wasn't this information provided to the Chairman of the Safety committee before she was hired.

9. In 2009 the last payment to the Law Director was postponed till 2010, why was this done.

10. Recently the Mayor and Code Enforcement Officer put together a letter to ask the owner of the Quick Stop Auto Repair to correct the code violations at that property. I asked where it said in the codes that ; 0nly one vehicle may be parked in a space, No parking under the awning, After business hours all cars must be in a parking space, no stacking of vehicles. In response to my request I was given a copy of the Property Maintenance code. That code doesn't cover these items. 

I have provided these question to Council in writing I would hope for a prompt response in writing. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter,

Tony Benedetti


Attached is the body of the letter from MP to Enocam Motors. 

It reads:

December 15, 2012

James Enow
Enocam Motors
5216 Cleveland Ave
Columbus, Ohio 43231

Re: Property Maintenance Violations

Dear Mr. Enow: 

Per our conversation on Monday, December 12, please take note of the following violations and time frame for correction:


1273.07 MAINTENANCE OF EXTERIORS OF STRUCTURES    must be completed by 12-26-11
(a) Dumpster screening structures 

Please repair the dumpster enclosure in a workmanlikemanner.

1282.06 SURFACING AND MAINTENANCE      must be completed by 1-15-12
(b) Parking surfaces must be maintained 

Please resurface the section of the parking lot that has fallen into disrepair.

1282.07 STRIPING     must be completed by 1-24-12
(b) Parking areas must be striped

After completion of the parking lot please submit a parking lot striping plan to the Code Enforcement Officer for approval. After obtaining approval, stripe and maintain parking spaces. 

1282.09 ACCESS AND MANEUVERING 
(a) Access and maneuvering areas.

Starting immediately only one vehicle may be parked in a parking space. There is no parking allowed under the awning. During business hours you may have vehicles that are not in parking spaces. However, at the close of business each day the number of cars on the lot WILL NOT exceed that of the number of parking spaces. No stacking of vehicles is permitted.


There were many issues addressed in these two letters. I'd like to make note of a few things for everyone, though.

Starting with the last of the issues, from what I can gather during council meetings, the owner of the auto repair shop (Enocam Motors) is very cooperative when meeting with the Code Enforcement Officer and is cordial about the issues with code violations. Some of the issues are created when customers leave their cars outside of business hours, something he can't directly control but unfortunately is still responsible for. 

The issue of the expired gas station/car repair shop is something I've personally heard about for a while now. It is unsightly and I am glad that the codes are working toward being enforced/remedied. I'm also glad there are dates by which they are to be completed, very professional and hopefully Enocam Motors can abide by them.

I see Tony's questioning of the letter and codes as a way of keeping the books and enforcement accountable. Some may argue against him (and I'm sure you will here) but good on him for trying to make sure there is an even playing field for everyone involved.

Some of the other issues he brings up are also of interest to me and I'd like to see an answer to them. Even if they're not of interest to me, I'd hope Tony gets an honest answer, even if it's that of Council admitting they've messed up somewhere or assumptions were made or a law is out of place. An honest answer is better than the line of defense I've seen out of Council when Tony tries to appeal to them in Council Meetings. 

 

January 2012 Villager

The January 2012 Villager is available online, if it hasn't hit your mailbox yet.

I anticipate residents can hear more about these topics at the Council Meeting tonight, however here are a highlight of some interesting topics from this month's Villager.

The MPCA is taking nominations for the Duck Award, recognizing an outstanding citizen our group from 2011.

There are plans for a Getting to Know You section, now featuring those who own a (certified) business within the park.

Lynn Eisntrout's Mayor's Report includes that her campaign website will remain live to share information. I don't understand why the Minerva Park website isn't the selected venue for this information, given that it is likely what residents are familiar with and representative of The Village as a whole.

All of Jordan road may be repaved, The Village has received 100% funding for the project, as of the Villager's printing.

Coffee with Council is going to be held January 23, and will include a speaker from ODNR sharing information about controlling the goose population.

The police department was in the process of determining which street signs need replaced due to age or exposed due to branches or shrubs impeding them.

The code enforcement officer is working on enforcing zoning laws with the owners of the "Payless Quickstop" car repair business. This seems to be an ongoing issue, but hopefully something can be worked out to improve the unsightliness we now see.

With the new year brings new terms in Council. Kent Stanley's term as council person ended in December and Dave Way took his place. The position of Matt Danzuso's vacancy was filled by Charles Legg (chosen by council, 4 to 1). Charles was placed on the Streets Committee and Dave on the Community Committee.

Council went into executive session at 7:50pm until 8:03 pm at the December Council Meeting. This was to discuss personnel issues and litigation. I have a hunch this has to do with the Jason Gross case, as posted about previously.

There is an article featuring three MP residents, students of Westerville South. This is a nice touch. I've noticed in previous Villager issues (as in the early '90s, late '80s) there was an emphasis on residents, something I personally would like to see more of. I think it instills a community within us more so than articles about the council and such. I think the MPCA is working towards this, and personally, I think it's great.

The police blotter has several breaking and enterings reported, though it appears many were at once at the Westerville Storage place within the village, it's a reminder of our crime rate lately.

The Village is looking for carpenters and masons to help with some repairs, if you have skills to lend, it would be good of you to share them. One idea mentioned is crafting a lending library box, for reusing books no longer wanted by the original owner. Sounds like a great idea, and I'd like to see it put into action, and would donate a book or two in the case it gets built!

Hope to see more residents at the Council Meeting tonight.

Citizen Comments During Council Meetings, 2012 edition

At this Saturday's work session/Special Council Meeting, the 2012 Rules of Council were passed. Included in the Rules of Council are the Rules for Citizen Comments:

Citizen Comments During Council Meetings

Council meetings are public business meetings of the Minerva Park Council. As such, all

citizen comments must be orderly, civil, and courteous and pertain to current issues and

topics of business before council.

Citizens wishing to address council at a Council Meeting must sign in and complete

a Citizen Comments Card before the meeting begins. The Citizen Comments Card

includes the name and address of the citizen and what specific topic/committee report

the citizen wishes to address. The citizen then gives the President of Council the card

before the meeting begins. Throughout the meeting, when the appropriate topic comes

up in the agenda (guest speaker, individual report or committee report), the citizen will

be recognized by the Mayor. The citizen then has three minutes to address the council

on a topic that relates directly to that committee or topic at hand. At the discretion of the

Mayor there can be discussion surrounding the topic. However, realizing that the council

meeting is an orderly business meeting, the discussion should always directly pertain to

the business at hand.

If it appears that the topic is not specific to the business before council or the committee,

the citizen will not be recognized until the end of the meeting at a general Citizen

Comments time. Any citizen speaking at that time will have a maximum of three minutes

to address council. No citizen will have more than nine minutes at any council meeting.

As always, citizens are encouraged to make an appointment to speak with the Mayor or

any member of Council about general issues of the Village.

In addition to the Citizen Comments Card, the Mayor or President of Council may

recognize any nonmember of council for the purpose of asking a brief question that

clarifies for the citizen the topic before council.

Any group of four or more, or a delegation of four or more, wishing to appear before

council should direct a letter to the Fiscal Officer and a copy to the Mayor in such time

that it will be received no later than 72 hours before a council meeting. At that time

council members shall also be notified by the Mayor or Fiscal Officer. It is clear that

this rule is not intended for an individual, or groups of two or three individuals, but

larger groups that wish to address an issue at a council meeting. The purpose of this is

to give council ample time to research and consider the problem to be presented and

discussed at the next meeting. Such a group shall choose a spokesperson to initially

present the issue to council and then other members of the group may be recognized to

give comments directly related to the issue when the group has been recognized to speak

on the committee topic.

At all times, speakers must be civil, courteous, avoid discussion of personalities, and

address issues before council. Specifically:

a. Citizen Comments at each meeting must be related to specific topics of the meeting

b. Citizen Comments not related to specific topics of the meeting can be presented if

the Mayor or President of Council has given approval before the work session the

Saturday before the Monday evening council meeting.

c. Citizen Comments are intended to present new information or opinions to the

council; comments that have previously and repeatedly been made are not

appropriate as council has already been informed of the citizen’s opinions.

d. Shouting or speaking loudly is not consistent with an orderly business meeting and

will not be tolerated.

e. Profanity and anger expressed in Citizen Comments is not consistent with an orderly

business meeting and will not be tolerated

f. Statements that stray from the topic at hand and single out individuals to criticize,

condemn, complain about, or belittle are not consistent with an orderly business

meeting and will not be tolerated

g. Citizens that repeatedly violate the guidelines for Citizen Comments will not be

recognized at future meetings

If at any meeting, any person becomes belligerent, discourteous, undertakes a discussion

of personalities, or strays from the topics before council, the Mayor or president pro

tempore of council may request that he/she return to the topic at hand and speak with

courtesy. If the person refuses, the Mayor or president pro tempore of council can ask

that the person surrender the floor and /or leave the meeting. If the person refuses, the

Mayor or president pro tempore of council can ask the Police Officer (if one is present)

to escort the person out of the room. The person can return when the Police Officer

determines appropriate. However, if the same actions continue, the person shall be

expelled permanently from that meeting.

As discussed in this previous post, we have previously had a clause for citizen comments; though now the rules and limitations seems to have doubled in print. I understand the need for order and direction during public meetings, and do value that these rules give respect to the length of the meetings; however I see this as another limiting agent our council is using to quiet dissenting opinion.

A few things that stick out to me are the following: 

• Comments not related to specific topics of the meeting can be presented if the Mayor or President of Council has given approval before the work session the Saturday before the Monday evening council meeting.  

A purpose of this would be to give council the time to review the topic and have useful feedback for the citizen's topic, however this leaves hearing the topic up to the discretion of the council president and mayor. Another limiting factor in what can be presented to both council and citizens present at the meeting. Not to mention the time factor in it, in the event a topic comes to mind after this time is up, it theoretically must wait until the following month's meeting to be presented in public. 

• comments that have previously and repeatedly been made are not appropriate as council has already been informed of the citizen’s opinions.

True, Council may already be informed of the citizen's opinions, but residents who infrequently attend may not be aware of grievances with council's actions; and new ideas or problems pertaining to the same topic or discussion could be suppressed with this rule.

This rule itself seems to spell out that council is aware of the citizen's opinions but doesn't care to hear them anymore, as they are obviously being left open to be brought up again by the citizen at more than one meeting. Issues are not being resolved that citizen(s) care about for this to be a necessary rule.

• Profanity and anger expressed in Citizen Comments is not consistent with an orderly business meeting and will not be tolerated

I completely agree with the part about profanity. However to require that speakers not express anger with any topic they wish to address is slightly unreasonable. No one is going to consistently agree with everything and not be angry about something. To ask that citizens not express emotion is quite constraining. As such, if council asks that of citizens, they should ask the same of council. There have been many meetings where certain members of council or Minerva Park administration have expressed anger through shouting, name calling, and wailing. That is not consistent with an orderly business meeting more so than that of citizens acting as such. Council and Village officials have a duty to be professional in holding their positions.

• Citizens that repeatedly violate the guidelines for Citizen Comments will not be recognized at future meetings 

Having attended several Council meetings I see this rule written for one dissenting (though quite valuable) citizen in particular. So, if council or our mayor repeatedly violate the rules, law, or civil rights of citizens or employees, are they going to be removed from their office or not recognized, by way of council or citizens? Obviously not, because that would have likely happened already.

I understand the necessity for regulations on public meetings, as said before, and I value the interest in the safety of the public in that council doesn't want dissent to grow to the point of violence or threats, but these rules are a little extreme for our village of 1,272. We usually have less than 15 residents at any given council meeting, and of those typically 3 at most speak as citizens, outside the capacity of working within the village, so I see this growth in rules as a way to suppress those few who do speak their minds and happen to disagree with the way things are being done. If they stood to praise council, I have a feeling their rules would be much more lenient.

Perhaps the time spent writing, deliberating, and enforcing these rules could have better served trying to eliminate some of the need for them. Though there will always be disagreements in policies and practices.

Legislation Tally for 2011

Legislation count for 2011:

Total Bodies of Legislation: 34

Labeled Emergency:
18  (53%)

All three Readings Waived:
12  (34%)

Two Readings Waived:
 3  (8.8%)

One Reading Waived:
1 (2.9%)

Labled Take Effect Upon Passage:
4  (12%)

Dates read include non-routine Council Meetings:
6  (17%)

Presented as "typical" legislation: (Read three times at the scheduled, public Council Meetings, not declared emergency nor to take effect upon passage)
9  (26%)



Compared to the 2010 legislation count:

Out of 39 total bodies of legislation:

Labeled Emergency:
22   (56%)

All three readings waived:
14   (36%)

Two readings waived:
1    (2%)- this particular resolution was read the same date of passage, technically I'm not sure the difference between this and waiving all three readings, Council, would you like to explain?

One reading waived:
3   (7%)

Dates read include non-routine, non-public Council Meetings:
6   (15%)

Labeled "Take effect upon passage":
3   (7%)

Presented as "typical" legislation: 
(Read three times at the scheduled, public Council Meetings, not declared emergency nor to take effect upon passage)
17   (43%)



The rate of rule disposal is about the same; in the 50% range. However the percent of "typical" legislation has fallen from 43 to 26. I have noticed more consideration as to the wording of emergencies and waiving readings, but also more special meetings being mentioned and held.

Police Message Regarding Burglary

The following is a scanned image of the message from our police department regarding the burglary that occurred, as previously posted, last week. The fliers were sent out on mailboxes to inform residents.

In case the above is illegible, it reads:

Dear Village of Minerva Park Resident:

The Minerva Park Police Department is informing you of a recent burglary that occurred this past week. Suspects entered through an unlocked front door and took valuables while the residents were home and in another room.

During the course of the investigation, we learned that Columbus Police have been experiencing a rash of burglaries in the area that occurred during daytime or early evening hours where suspects were trying unlocked front doors to make entry into a home or were entering through open garage doors into a residence.

While we have only had one report of this type of crime in our community, we would like to prevent any future occurrences. Please be aware of this criminal activity and take precautions by closing your garage doors and locking your entrance doors (front and back), even when you are home. If anyone appears at your residence who you do not know or if you see any activity you believe is out of place, call us right away at 882-1223 (dispatch number) and ask for an officer to check on the suspicious person. 

Yours truly,

Chief Kim Nuesse

Minerva Park Police

I have heard another door was tried in a separate incident after the first, but I do not know this to be a fact. Either way, it serves again to remind us to be cautious. This is a good opportunity to be in contact with your neighbors and keep everyone aware. A small change of habit from simply closing the door to closing and locking it can protect your family, your home, and your piece of mind.