With the campaign getting closer, comments are a flurry on the blog.
I'd like to point out some things:
1. This blog is obviously NOT a public news source. I am under no obligation to the public in the information that I write about. If you want straight unbiased facts, you're going to have to get them from experience. Though I'm starting to question even that.
While in the past I tried hard to keep this blog to straight facts only and no opinion, it wasn't getting far and it is very hard to keep your opinions to yourself on these issues; as is evident in the comments left.
2. Please review the comment policies, located on a separate tab at the top of the screen, here: http://walkinginminervapark.blogspot.com/p/comment-policies.html
I do my best to respond to the requests to remove individual comments.
To the individual that thinks my comment removal is biased, I want to remind you that the comments about "the other side" have not been requested to be removed. Though....sometime last year I received a certified letter from a Minerva Park police officer ordering that I remove comments someone had written about him on this blog. He threatened legal action if I didn't remove them. That's a little much, eh? All one needs to do to have comments removed is ask. You can even do it anonymously! Though it doesn't make a lot of sense to ask that every single comment be removed, because what's the fun in that? What would we be without the ability to voice our opinions? Not American.
Well said Jessica!
ReplyDeleteThat same police officer was denied employment with the Westerville PD in or around August 2007. Would love to know the REAL reason he was turned down.
ReplyDeleteWonder if it has anything to do with his threats to sue?. Heard he was also recently DENIED employment with Reynoldsburg, Obetz, and OSP. Hmmmm... Makes one wonder. Hey officer that threatened to sue, can you tell us why you weren't hired at any of these departments? We would like the record set straight so no one gets sued. This post is just an attempt to obtain the truth and not to bash that officer. Please don't send me any certified letters. I am afraid of retaliation from the department and this officer so I shall remain anonymous.
I've been reading your blog for awhile now and I think that if you want to raise the level of discourse in your comments you shouldn't allow Anonymous posting. Nothing makes a fool more foolish then being able to hide behind anonimity.
ReplyDeleteThere has to be a way for people to express their opinions and concerns without the fear of retaliation. Some residents are and have been unfairly targeted through citations, code enforcement and just harassed by the village goons in power when they put their names on complaints or express their views in meetings. Brian, your idea sounds great in paper but it won't work. That's why crimestoppers allows anonymous tips. Better to get the facts out there. Doesn't really matter who says them.
ReplyDeleteI learned in grade school not to trust "facts" that can't be vetted. and opionions from Anonymous certainly can't be vetted.
DeleteSo by putting ones names on their comments changes that?
DeleteYou should "vett" whatever facts that you see but don't believe. Just because someone puts a name in front of a comment, doesn't change anything. The media is a perfect example of that.
How many times do they print stories that are not correct? The villager is another example too. Printed that the police chief had been acquitted of all charges in Sandusky. Must be true then. Even though the court documents say different. That is a fact that can be "vetted". See.... And you didn't even need to know my name.
Can you give me the month of that Villager article I'd love to look into that.
DeleteJanuary 2011
Deletehttp://www.minervaparkhttp://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20OHCO%2020111216421org/villager/
Those links didn't work. Please
Deletesee the village website and bring up the Chiefs bio. It says she was fired and reinstated on all four charges. She was not.
You can "Google" search for the legal decision on her case. She was found to be dishonest.
Spend a little time doing your own fact finding.
Or talk to Mr. Tony Benedetti. He has all of the information.
DeleteHope this helps.
My google must be broken cuz I just ccn't find it. does anyone have the mo/yr of that villager peice or a ink for the info on the cheif?
DeleteFix your Google. Try yahoo search. Just look at the village website under police chief. Its her bio. If you still can't find it, you aren't looking.
DeleteThe Chief was introduced to the Village in the Feb 2011 Villager. In the article it said that the Chief was fired from Sandusky and later "reinstated in full on all four counts, and the city of Sandusky continues to appeal one finding" On Aug 10, 2010 in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, Ohio Case No. 09 CV .0859 the court cleared the Chief on 3 of the 4 charges.
DeleteIn the Judge's decision he stated that "A pattern of dishonest conduct permeating the entire case" and "Chief Nuesse management style was,in large part, simply based upon the telling of partial truths and outright lies to suit her own purposes"
I asked the Chief about this issue and she told me that she had given all the information to the Mayor. So either the Chief didn't give all the information to the Mayor or the Mayor decided not to share all the information with Council and the residents.
If the Members of Council truly had the integrity that they claim to have I would like to know who is responsible for the confusion.
Thanks for sharing Mr. Benedetti.
DeleteNot sure but I think the 3 members of council on the safety committee at the time that interviewed and recommended the current police chief were Pam Park-Curry, Todd Walter, and Sharon Bierman. There was also a consultant hired by the mayor and paid by the village that recommended the current chief. All reported that she had been cleared on all 4 counts by the Sandusky Civil Service’s Commission, which was not true either.
ReplyDeleteThe civil service hearing officer, former judge Joseph Cirigliano, recommended the City decision to discharge Nuesse be sustained based on the four charges, and the Sandusky Civil Service’s Commission voted 2-1 to not follow the recommendation and reinstated with no back pay. It was a decision to not follow the findings and there was "no clearing" of the charges, and the no back pay are evident of that. The city challenged that decision and the case went to Erie Common Pleas Court Case No. 09CV0859, where Judge Sherck listed seven other “falsehoods” he thought Nuesse committed and upheld the firing for dishonesty on at least 3 ocassions overturning the Civil Service’s Commission’s decision. The Court of Appeals of Ohio Sixth District in Court of Appeals Case No. E-10-039 upheld the decision made in Case No. 09CV0859 when it was appealed.
Sadly, not enough people REALLY know the truth. They only read the villager and believe what they read. Nice Job Tony Benedetti. You tried to get people to see the problems with the village. Good luck in two years, if the village is still there.
ReplyDelete