October Villager Issue Number 1

As usual, there are many issues with the presentation of items in the Minerva Park Villager.

Issue one that I would like to call your attention to is this, contained in the Mayor's Report:

"On September 23, the Planning & Zoning Commission, with some Council members and residents present, met with Fischer Homes' representatives to review an initial plan of the layout of the full development of the property and to discuss the Pre-annexation Agreement. This was not a public hearing or a town meeting." (emphasis added)

This comes immediately after Lynn's profession that everything is being open and shared with all residents. She then writes that the meeting was attended by "some residents" but it was not a public hearing or a town meeting.

Some of you are still going to insist that there is nothing wrong. Some will still say that I put a negative spin on this and am leaving other considerations out; perhaps there are other considerations--no one can possibly know everything that factors in to any particular action, even their own.

For those of you who feel that way, your opinions won't be changed, and I don't intend to make that so. You have to be the one to decide to change your own mind. Reading this blog is the first step to accepting some of the truths that many seem to overlook consistently. If that's insulting, you should be further insulted by the way that "your" elected officials run this village.

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.

The Villager on the 2003 Clerk-Treasurer Election

Apparently the bias in the Villager has been long-standing. The November 2003 issue featured details on candidates as provided from Meet The Candidates Night. I found the following interesting:

ClerkTreasurer
Suzanne R. Coulter, incumbent
• 6 years as MP Treasurer
• Chosen by State Auditors Office
to assist in training other
treasurers
• Changed the Village accounting
system from completely manual
to a State-approved
computerized system
• Endorsed by Minerva Park
Police, MP EMS, and MP Swim
Club Board
• Chairperson of MPCA Children’s
Committee for 5 years

Loree B. Cox
[Editor’s Note] At Candidates
Night, Loree Cox, candidate for
Clerk-Treasurer, distributed
literature that alluded to “improper
activities in the Clerk-Treasurers
Office.” Complaints have been
filed against Loree Cox with the
Ohio Elections Commission, as a
possible violation of Ohio Revised
Code Section 3517.21B(10). At
press time for this newsletter, this
issue had not yet been resolved,
so we are unable to publish her
literature here.


The Villager supported Suzanne Coulter (who was running for re-election) but instead of pulling facts from Loree Cox's literature, they made a complaint against her and publicized the scandal they created.

The Village needs games like this to end.

Playground Structure

The Minerva Park Playground has become a sore sight. The June 1999 Villager featured a piece on the new playground to be installed, it has since been 12 years.

You might notice from this shot that things aren't exactly straight anymore. The railing next to the spiral slide indicates some of the tilting going on. In person it is much more pronounced all around, if you give it a look.

The wooden structure has been infested with bees in the warmer months, which have left holes throughout the structure. The wood is now rotting and it seems almost monthly this year there has been a board needing replaced.

Here is just one example of the damage from bees:

 Almost every roof peak looks like this.

A few days ago, an entire railing fell off the upper landing:

It belongs above the yellow tunnel, seen above.

Someone propped it up against a post.

Rotten wood permeates the structure.

A look from above on where it was rotting.

Here is a shot of the underside of the large platform. It looks as though a supporting board is missing.

As of the night these photos were taken, Tuesday, July 19th, there was caution tape on the structure. I have yet to see if proper repairs have been made. Edit: as of 8:30pm July 22nd, there is still caution tape where the railing belongs.

Not only is this a safety hazard, it concerns me as a resident because on Wednesday, July 20th, Dave Hays, the Code Enforcement Officer, spoke to a resident saying that there were complaints made about the weeds in their garden, a commercial vehicle in their driveway and a few other issues. The residents neighbors didn't file any complaints and, apparently under Lynn Eisentrout and Kim Nuesse's advice, Dave came to the residents' home with a police officer. Why isn't attention being given to the safety hazard that exists in the Minerva Park playground (one that the Park stands to be in a lawsuit over if a person were hurt) but it is being focused on a resident which Lynn personally does not like?

If you want to take things further, why isn't attention being given (at least more strongly) to the commercial properties on Cleveland Avenue that fall under Minerva Park Zoning Ordinances? Any resident who drives past that strip mall serves to gain from it being cleaned up and ordinances better enforced. Better yet, residents who are trying to sell their homes in Minerva Park but can't because of the surrounding area serve to gain from those businesses being held to the zoning codes, much more-so than they do one commercial vehicle and a few wildflowers at the residence of a neighbor whom Lynn decided to single out.

July 2011 Villager

Opening this month's Villager, I found it much improved compared to last month's issue. The bias is less apparent, I suppose.

The issue can be found online, here.

While I encourage you to read it in full or at least an overview, here are my thoughts, as a resident, on it.

Lynn's Mayor's Report included a piece on the Yard Waste pick up. It was a good clarification of the "regulations" as she said, however I found it interesting that they claim the "garbage drivers think it is yard waste and leave it for the yard waste drivers and vice versa" when a can contains both some garbage and some yard waste or vice versa. I found this interesting because almost every week, yard waste comes through first, then the recycling truck, and then, much later in the day, garbage pick up. How could the garbage people think it's going to be picked up by the yard waste truck, when they've already been through and neighboring cans are empty of yard waste? Either way, she gave us a clarification of the regs. and I suppose we can easily enough follow them. There are labels at the Community Building if you need/desire any for your cans.

The Mayor's Report also included a piece from the Council Meeting on Finance, in which they sum up the happenings in the Public Hearing of the Budget that was held 30 minutes before the regular council meeting. I have to say, I don't believe this short collection of sentences is a full and accurate account of what happened or what was questioned or said, but at least it was acknowledged, I suppose.

The report of the Council Meeting ends with a note that the Council Meeting retired into Executive session, which seems to be an "as usual" recently. There have been at least three executive sessions in the last four months that I am aware of. Hmm....something with "personnel" is going on. More on this with the Police Chief's piece....

Also, "Where are You?" is interesting. I'm glad it was included, because we need more residents to get involved. But I have to wonder if this was included because they need more residents involved. Lynn is up for re-election this year, and she won by little in the last race. This year the Late Jack Murray will not be running, and if one should run against her she stands a chance at losing. Considering the source, this doesn't feel sincere. The facts on the 2007 election are sobering though, only 35.5% of Minerva Park residents voted in our races. 

Of note: the Minerva Park Green Team is on Facebook, check 'em out if you're interested.

Now, to Chief Nuesse's piece, "On the Beat". I think this was filled with valuable information for residents. I myself have wondered what constitutes a 9-1-1 call or a call to the non-emergency line (882-1223).

I did notice the "New Officers" paragraph as well. These are the officers replacing the two recently fired. Supposedly what those "Executive Sessions on Personnel matters" were about. I hope these new recruits will prove as valuable to the Village as their predecessors have, but I'd like to see less Executive session and more value of the officers who know this village and have served here for years.

I also found it a bit ironic that she states "Would you like to meet your officers and get to know what the crime trends are to better protect you and your family?" when just weeks ago there was an order put out basically stating that officers were not to speak to residents for "a prolonged period". The Chief states residents can call her to set up a time and place, in the Villager.

Otherwise, I did find her piece informative and useful.

The Garage Sale Fund Raiser is coming up next month, something I and many I know look forward to every year. Registrations are due August 10th, 7:00pm to Dianne Poncinie.

Also of note, Suzanne Coulter, resigned Clerk-Treasurer, is still managing the Village finances. While I disagree with her attitude and some of her opinions, and previously how involved she managed to make her opinions though her position did not merit it, the Village does owe her some gratitude for maintaining the Village accounts. She could have left us high and dry in immediate need of a replacement, and she has chosen not to. Though I don't typically have much nice to say about her because of what I have seen in the Community Building out of her, I do realize the value of her work, particularly now that she is choosing to do so when she doesn't have to.

Overall, I felt this issue of the Villager was less propaganda, less opinionated, and less biased, though we still have to consider the source.

Refresher for Vacancies on Council

The following is the procedure to be taken for filling vacancies on council, as found in the 2011 Rules of Council.

Filling Vacancies on Council
When a vacancy arises on council either through a council member vacating an unexpired term or because no one ran to fill a 4-year term, there will be an immediate call for citizens to indicate their interest in filling the unexpired or vacant term. Such call will be made through announcements in the village newsletter, phone calls from council members and others knowing of the vacancy, and announcements placed at appropriate
places in the village. Such announcements will include the deadline for citizens to indicate their interest. The deadline will be within 30 days of the first date the vacancy was announced to the public.

To indicate interest, a citizen must submit a resume and letter of intent to the mayor or any of the council members. Once the mayor or council member receives the resume and letter, he/she will immediately see that all members of council receive copies. If no regular meeting is scheduled, a special meeting will be scheduled immediately after the deadline in order for the interested citizens to appear in person before the mayor and
council to both ask and answer questions.

Every effort should be made to have all council members present to interview and select a new member. At least four members* of council must be present in order to call the meeting to order and select and vote to fill a vacancy. Filling the vacancy will be the first order of business on the agenda.

All candidates would be interviewed and a vote taken. Voting is to be done by secret ballot one position at a time with the vacancy of shortest duration filled first. Because there might be multiple vacancies (one, two or even three vacancies) on council at one time, there must be at least three council members present to proceed with the voting.

Whether there are three, four, or five members of council present to select a new member, at least three votes must be cast in favor of any one individual for that person to be selected. In no instance would a person be voted to council with fewer than three votes.

Once the vote is taken and an applicant has received three or more votes, that person can be placed on council by resolution and sworn in by the mayor and can begin his/her duties immediately. If there are still vacancies and still interested applicants for the positions, the voting can continue until all positions are filled. All members of council are required to vote unless there is a conflict of interest (see section on Voting), and , if a member feels there are no qualified candidates among those interested, that council member can cast a blank ballot that indicates "NO VOTE.”

If council is unable to select a replacement within the 30 day period, the mayor shall appoint a replacement or the mayor can decide that the position will be re-advertised and there will be another 30 days to fill the position.

Unless otherwise decided by the mayor and council, the person filling the vacancy will serve on all the committees as the person being replaced until the end of the year, however, if the person being replaced was chair of the committee, the mayor and council may appoint one of the existing committee members to serve as chair for the remainder of the year.

*In the unlikely event that there are three vacancies on council at one time, a meeting can be called to order with only three members with appointing a new council member being the first and only item to be acted upon with three members. In the case of three vacancies, if any one person receives all three votes of the council members present, that person is immediately placed on council by resolution and sworn in by the mayor. At
that point there are now four on council, the new member may vote, and there is a quorum to conduct business.

I should expect to see notification of this vacancy immediately. Even if the legal requirement of notification is met, I doubt it will be in an effective manner, considering very few people I have spoken with are aware of the previous resignation of the Clerk-Treasurer that occurred last week, though that position is not covered under Rules of Council.

Update: The resignation this was in reference to has been rescinded. The council member still holds this position.

Bias in Council?

This past month an ordinance was proposed to increase (future) council members' pay. The topic of this post is more heavily focused on the way that this piece of legislation was presented rather than the legislation itself, however there were some curious issues about the discussion of the legislation among council.

The first presentation of this ordinance (3-2011) was during the March Council Meeting, March 14, 2011.
During this meeting, the chair of the legislation committee, Sharon Bierman, presented the ordinance with a reading, as any other ordinance is presented, but finished the reading with a comment "I would like to add that this is sponsored by council member Segovia."

When asked why she mentioned that, she said that it was to make it clear it did not originate with the Mayor, Clerk-Treasurer, or herself. She then asked for an opinion from the Clerk-Treasurer on the financial situation for the coming year (2012).

Suzanne Coulter, Clerk-Treasurer, reported that: "very preliminary numbers show that by the end of 2012 the village will be in the red by current spending. Mainly because of two revenue streams losses." (The local government fund and estate taxes). 

The issue of funding and the contents of the ordinance will be discussed later, for now, let's look at the attention that council drew to this particular ordinance that is not given to any other ordinance I have seen in the last 4 years of legislation as posted on the website.

The website itself lists the legislation as follows:

No other ordinance (or resolution) has a sponsor listed with it.

This image was taken before the legislation was presented to council. 

I personally have also noticed that there isn't much of any failed legislation. Either it doesn't fail, or it's removed from the website, I'm not sure. 

There seems to be a pattern where council does what it wants. What a select few want is what goes. 

This image was taken after the legislation was voted down in the March council meeting.

I also find it ironic that a council member (Pam Park-Curry) mentioned that it was just the first reading of the ordinance and questions could be discussed in the upcoming work session. Then, she proceeded to vote down the ordinance, as did everyone excepting Mr. Segovia, said sponsor. Therefore, questions couldn't be discussed in work session.

After the vote, Sharon Bierman requested a poll of the vote, by way of a show of hands.

The Villager issue for April 2011 included this legislation in the Mayor's Report, listed under the Legislative committee. It reads as follows:

Ordinance 3-2011- Increasing council members' pay from $600/year to $1,800/year (ayes were Segovia; nays were Bierman, Danzuso, Park-Curry, Stanley, Walter). First reading and thus the ordinance itself, failed.

This is the only ordinance I have ever seen presented in the villager with individual names attached to votes. It is a rarity to see any ordinance listed with the number of votes attached. However, most of the legislation proposed by council passes. There seems to be a bit of peer pressure in the room while voting happens. What a select few say goes with everyone else. 

Perhaps this is because if one doesn't always comply with the desires of this select few, they will be ostracized as Mr. Segovia has been. Their name will appear on legislation they propose, they will be made to look as if they are uncooperative with the rest of council. Technically, that may be true, but making a voting choice to cooperate is not what voting should be about.

Because Mr. Segovia doesn't always cooperate with the peer pressure council exudes, he has been labeled as one of "them" rather than one of "us" by council. Well, that's my opinion on it at least. Sit in on a meeting, look critically at the Villagers, and you'll likely agree. The same goes for particular citizens that don't meet the standards or interests of council. But that's another topic.

To the issue of the ordinance itself, Sharon seemed interested in the increased cost in increasing pay of newly elected members. The Park does face issues with funding, though there is an interesting pattern in what is viewed as "do able" with funding and what is not.

One particular example was brought up in the Council Meeting was the spending on Panera Bread catering for the Christmas Carriage rides in 2010. The Village spent $2,303.03 from the Village fund, not the MPCA on Panera's catering. The estimate for attendance was about 325. That comes out to about $7.09 per person for food alone. 

When asked about this expense relative to that of increasing compensation for council members, Suzanne Coulter responded that she didn't have a comment for that, and that the budget was sent out.

The intent of this compensation increase was to encourage residents to run for council, as there are several positions coming up for election this fall.

I personally noticed that during the March Council Work Session, the topic of documents being shared via e-mail was brought up. There seems to have been a switch from paper documentation to largely virtual documents. When council member Segovia asked that documents formatted for legal paper be printed as they always had been, Sharon interjected that was part of personal printing costs, to come out of the $600/year. Suzanne added that it must be the same for everyone, as in they can't print things for one person and not another. Theoretically though, they could offer to print for everyone and anyone could turn down having copies prepared for them if they choose to use e-mail. Though during this work session, Mr. Segovia brought up that even through e-mail documents aren't always dispensed in a timely fashion. I digress...

So, apparently not only is "council" not interested in increasing compensation for newly elected members, they are, perhaps inadvertently, increasing costs for current council members.

Apparently buying Panera catering for an event that would likely suffice with volunteer baked goods and hot chocolate is "do-able" with Village funds. Another expense that wasn't a necessity: TrueGreen Chemlawn: $1623.52 in 2010.
The amount of increase for the two positions coming up combined equals $2,400.00 a year. Compare this to the above "expenses" that were considered good enough to merit Village money.

The overall intent of this post is to address the special treatment Mr. Segovia received from council. No other piece of legislation has been treated as his was. There is a lot of room for respect to grow in our council, but as long as these practices continue there will continue to be a "them" and an "us" feeling in our community building.

NPR Piece on Sunshine Week

In celebration of Sunshine Week, or at least awareness of it, NPR's Ann Fisher covered a piece on the importance of public records and their dispensation.

Listen to this!

It can be found at http://www.wosu.org/allsides/ under Wednesday 3/16 11:00 AM - Open Government

Or, listen here:



This comes just in time after the March Villager was published, well, delivered. But that's another issue.
In the March Villager, the annual report was published including a few remarks in regard to public records requests. (This may be seen here)

The following was stated by Suzanne Coulter, Clerk-Treasurer of Minerva Park:

Although the Village is obligated to honor public records requests and continues to do so, during the last two years, the number of public records requests have become an undue burden on the Village. The Clerk-Treasurer's office alone has spent more than 25 hours answering public records requests – in addition to the many hours spent by the Mayor's Assistant and the Mayor. This costs taxpayer money but more importantly has prevented us from devoting time to other responsibilities or projects. The many hours devoted to public records requests could have been spent seeking grant money to build a new community building.

First, I'd like to "table" the issue of whether or not we need a new community building. Where did that come from? Anyway...

This piece is from Lynn Eisnetrout, Mayor of Minerva Park:

We have been somewhat hampered by an unusual number of public records requests that have consumed a significant amount time of the Clerk-Treasurer, my Assistant, and me. 

Now, when this was brought up in the March Council Meeting, Mayor Eisentrout's answer to a comment about the tone of complaint was "I'm not complaining, I'm stating the facts"

I don't see the purpose of "stating the facts" other than to complain. What good will it do the Clerk-Treasurer or the Mayor to mention this, other than to complain. It's not going to make the public records requests stop, if anything it shines a light on the fact that someone is keeping tabs on what goes on behind closed doors in the community building.

The volume of these records requests comes from the less than up front attitude about what goes on in Minerva Park. As long as people, such as myself, feel as though the government needs to be babysat, records need to be requested.