Hi All,
What was scheduled as a rather routine township Board of Trustees meeting had a SURPRISE addition to the agenda on Monday, July 13, 2015.
I knew you could change the ORDER of agenda items, but I didn't know you could ADD a completely unrelated agenda item without PRIOR notice to the public. Township Attorney Bill Hampton told me after the meeting that it is in Robert's Rules of Order that permit adding an agenda item to a PUBLIC meeting without prior notice. I guess I need to re-read that document.
I feel that the Township KNEW about this issue ahead of time and could have put it on the agenda... or even waited 2 weeks for the next regularly scheduled meeting IN ORDER TO GIVE NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC OF THEIR INTENT. They didn't. I find that UNACCEPTABLE.
Trustee Corinne Khederian... was the person who wanted to discuss the recent article(s) about Dan Devine that recently has been making news. She was the person to request the ADDED agenda item. She was the one that began the public "discussion" of Dan Devine.
The first person to write about this issue was Lisa Brody in Downtown Publications.
After the meeting I asked her how did she know to FOIA this police
report. She told me some police officers told her about it. After
that, Jay Grossman of the Hometown Life and The Detroit Free Press also wrote an article on the subject.
Treasurer Devine admitted to speaking to the Township Police department, but claimed he did not file an official report.
Now, this wasn't ANY agenda item... the "discussion" of Treasurer Dan Devine ended with a motion of a pre-written Resolution for Censure of Mr. Devine by Trustee Neal Barnett and the motion was supported by Trustee Corinne Khederian. The vote was 5-2 for Censure with Treasurer Dan Devine and Trustee David Buckley voting NO.
The ADDED agenda item was obviously pre-planned: who knew? .... Some audience members were given a heads up to attend; the police chief and 2 police officers; the fire chief; someone made a written copy of the motion to add the agenda item; Trustee Neal Barnett had written copies of a Censure Resolution he wrote earlier in the day; there was other paperwork (not fully discussed but handed out to the trustees) by Trustee Brian Kepes and there was at least one other township employee in the audience that was not needed for any scheduled agenda item. So... was he or others attending the meeting here for the "show"? I forgot to mention the several news reporters and a photographer that often shoots pictures for the township and local papers. Wow.... a pre-planned SECRET TO THE PUBLIC.... scathing agenda item.
I told Supervisor Savoie after the meeting, that this agenda item... could have waited 2 weeks... and could have been POSTED properly. My gut says... he was OK... with doing it this way.
Apparently Mr. Devine was prepared to make a public apology to Mr. Savoie at the end of the regular meeting, but seemed to have no prior knowledge that this "added agenda item" was coming. With some saying Mr. Devine may have made a false police report, thus, he remained quiet and did not respond to some questions without legal representation and/or legal advice.
While most of the "discussion" centered on the reported "kidnapping" issue, the Resolution to Censure went way beyond that. Trustee Barnett included other issues in the Censure Resolution that he wrote and those other issues were not completely discussed tonight, thus Trustee Buckley was questioning the wording of the Resolution and thus voting no.
The best way to learn of this ADDED AGENDA ITEM and CENSURE of the Treasurer.... is to WATCH it on video. It will take a day or so... if standard procedure is followed... to get the video to this link: http://www.bloomfieldtwp.org/Services/cable/Videos/BoardOfTrusteeMeetings.asp
However, ......The Township also REPLAYS the Monday Board of Trustees meeting on local Bl. Township cable TV... Comcast channel 15 and AT&T ?? It will be TUESDAY, July 14 @ 2pm.
I spoke at the Board meeting... enough said here. My blog archives also speak volumes about the Township.
In November 2016 ..ALL 7 Township government positions are on the ballot. PLEASE... QUALIFIED people need to step up and get on the ballot. The Township is in need of a TOTAL new slate of candidates.
Clearly, not all items were presented in the Board Packet for this meeting. I asked during public comment, that all "extra items" presented about the ADDED agenda item be put in the Board Packet....for the public to see. Don't know if that will happen.
Marcia
PS> To Anonymous: You can comment on my blog... but I have a system set up so I can review the comment before being published....or not.... I never publish any comment that also adds a link to some other website. I'm not here to advertise your business.
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
Friday, July 10, 2015
Who Gets the last 2 Liquor Licenses and at What Cost?
Hi All,
On Monday, July 12, 2015 @ 7 pm the following will be an AGENDA ITEM at the Board of Trustees meeting.
The problem with this "agenda item" is there will be some "discussion" ( pre-determined for the most part) and this agenda item will have a VOTE... that will change how and to whom ... a liquor license is awarded.... well... keep reading... Show up at the meeting if you are a business owner or a potential owner/investor needing one of these liquor licenses.
It appears that this new criteria is just for the two available: CLASS C and TAVERN QUOTA LIQUOR LICENSES.
Thinking out loud: what IF our population increases and more licenses become available? Do they need to meet these new criteria?
More thinking. What if an existing establishment closes and the existing license either goes back to the Township or is sold... must the new owner of that license meet these new criteria in this resolution?
FYI:
It always amazes me how the Township RESOLUTIONS are pre-written and not a result of the Township Board and Citizens discussion at a public meeting.
Somehow, study sessions took place with no public notice... or groups of people met below the number required to have open meetings and hashed all this out. Obviously, the township had to pay lawyers to write this up...and I wonder if they also participated in the decision making? Will the Township tell the taxpayers when and how this issue came up... and who participated in writing the Resolution?
The three minutes at the podium for comment/discussion by the citizens mean nothing. Often the Trustees seem to be checking their phones or laughing among themselves versus actually paying attention to what may be said. Then, Supervisor Savoie chooses what he wishes to respond to... and not other comments. He always has the last comment and no citizen follow up is permitted.
Good grief... just recently, an elderly man with an oxygen tank was speaking out of turn for the second time... and Supervisor Savoie had the elderly man escorted out of the meeting by an ARMED policeman. If the Township would follow Roberts Rules of Order, maybe some issues could actually be heard properly.
My second area of concern deals with WHY is this resolution NEEDED NOW?
Let's speculate.
Supervisor Leo Savoie basically appointed himself to be part of the 3 person committee ( Joint Development Council) planning the property shared with the City of Pontiac on Telegraph Road... AKA the failed Bloomfield Park property. That acreage is reported to be going out of bankruptcy and a proposal to develop by Redico and others was on the table at the April 16, 2015 meeting (go to the link in this paragraph and click on Council Packets). Unfortunately, any May or June meeting held does not have any minutes posted. What does Savoie know from those meetings? Are there businesses willing to come to this area IF..... they get a liquor license? Is there a question as to how can Savoie keep the TWO remaining liquor licenses available for those potential establishments?
Coming up: NEXT MEETING of the Joint Development Council:
Let's speculate some more.
There is property in the northeast section of the township that is now vacant and in need of investors.
South Boulevard/ Opdyke/ Squirrel roads... A really nice establishment with a liquor license would most likely be welcomed by the taxpayers in that area. But could a new restaurant AFFORD the new criteria? It is not as high a traffic location as Telegraph Road. The question is.. should this Township Board make decisions that improve ALL SECTIONS of the Township? Will this resolution eliminate some areas for redevelopment? How many liquor establishments do we need on Telegraph Rd?
Well, let's read the township's predetermined.... RESOLUTION. See Below.
The Resolution will adopt ADDITIONAL CRITERIA ....above and beyond what all the existing liquor license holders in the township needed when they got their permit. The existing businesses are exempt from meeting the new additional criteria.
1. Money is one new criteria.
2. Seating capacity is another new criteria. Must have 60 or more seats.
3. Job creation is also required by the applicant.
4. Capital investment for new or redeveloped property... a mere $1.5 million.
5. Capital investment for existing business... why a "preferred minimum" of $250,000 already spent over the past 5 years combined with job increases.
6. Gambling will not be allowed or permitted.
Thinking out loud.....What if the facility is to be used by a charity that wants to hold special "gambling" events? Will that be denied? Will existing liquor license holders be able to hold "gambling" events for charities?
7. Keep reading the "Resolution" below for MORE CRITERIA. I would love to know who sat around thinking all this up.
8. FYI...I wanted to read the Ordinance referenced in the resolution.. but when I did a SEARCH of the township website.. this is what appeared:
"no pages contain the words: zoning ordinance 569" I'm sure it is SOMEWHERE... but it would be nice if the document was included in the board packet. Maybe here:https://www.municode.com/library/mi/bloomfield_charter_township,_%28oakland_co.%29/codes/code_of_ordinances
In my opinion, if you are CHANGING an ordinance... it would nice to see the ORIGINAL... and exactly HOW it will be worded in the future.
9. Have questions or need answers from the Township? Sorry... they voted themselves a 4 day work week... they don't work on Friday. You'll have to wait until Monday.... or speak up and help get the Township get back to a 5 day work week... like the rest of us...
On Monday, July 12, 2015 @ 7 pm the following will be an AGENDA ITEM at the Board of Trustees meeting.
The problem with this "agenda item" is there will be some "discussion" ( pre-determined for the most part) and this agenda item will have a VOTE... that will change how and to whom ... a liquor license is awarded.... well... keep reading... Show up at the meeting if you are a business owner or a potential owner/investor needing one of these liquor licenses.
It appears that this new criteria is just for the two available: CLASS C and TAVERN QUOTA LIQUOR LICENSES.
Thinking out loud: what IF our population increases and more licenses become available? Do they need to meet these new criteria?
More thinking. What if an existing establishment closes and the existing license either goes back to the Township or is sold... must the new owner of that license meet these new criteria in this resolution?
FYI:
It always amazes me how the Township RESOLUTIONS are pre-written and not a result of the Township Board and Citizens discussion at a public meeting.
Somehow, study sessions took place with no public notice... or groups of people met below the number required to have open meetings and hashed all this out. Obviously, the township had to pay lawyers to write this up...and I wonder if they also participated in the decision making? Will the Township tell the taxpayers when and how this issue came up... and who participated in writing the Resolution?
The three minutes at the podium for comment/discussion by the citizens mean nothing. Often the Trustees seem to be checking their phones or laughing among themselves versus actually paying attention to what may be said. Then, Supervisor Savoie chooses what he wishes to respond to... and not other comments. He always has the last comment and no citizen follow up is permitted.
Good grief... just recently, an elderly man with an oxygen tank was speaking out of turn for the second time... and Supervisor Savoie had the elderly man escorted out of the meeting by an ARMED policeman. If the Township would follow Roberts Rules of Order, maybe some issues could actually be heard properly.
My second area of concern deals with WHY is this resolution NEEDED NOW?
Let's speculate.
Supervisor Leo Savoie basically appointed himself to be part of the 3 person committee ( Joint Development Council) planning the property shared with the City of Pontiac on Telegraph Road... AKA the failed Bloomfield Park property. That acreage is reported to be going out of bankruptcy and a proposal to develop by Redico and others was on the table at the April 16, 2015 meeting (go to the link in this paragraph and click on Council Packets). Unfortunately, any May or June meeting held does not have any minutes posted. What does Savoie know from those meetings? Are there businesses willing to come to this area IF..... they get a liquor license? Is there a question as to how can Savoie keep the TWO remaining liquor licenses available for those potential establishments?
Coming up: NEXT MEETING of the Joint Development Council:
Let's speculate some more.
There is property in the northeast section of the township that is now vacant and in need of investors.
South Boulevard/ Opdyke/ Squirrel roads... A really nice establishment with a liquor license would most likely be welcomed by the taxpayers in that area. But could a new restaurant AFFORD the new criteria? It is not as high a traffic location as Telegraph Road. The question is.. should this Township Board make decisions that improve ALL SECTIONS of the Township? Will this resolution eliminate some areas for redevelopment? How many liquor establishments do we need on Telegraph Rd?
Well, let's read the township's predetermined.... RESOLUTION. See Below.
The Resolution will adopt ADDITIONAL CRITERIA ....above and beyond what all the existing liquor license holders in the township needed when they got their permit. The existing businesses are exempt from meeting the new additional criteria.
1. Money is one new criteria.
2. Seating capacity is another new criteria. Must have 60 or more seats.
3. Job creation is also required by the applicant.
4. Capital investment for new or redeveloped property... a mere $1.5 million.
5. Capital investment for existing business... why a "preferred minimum" of $250,000 already spent over the past 5 years combined with job increases.
6. Gambling will not be allowed or permitted.
Thinking out loud.....What if the facility is to be used by a charity that wants to hold special "gambling" events? Will that be denied? Will existing liquor license holders be able to hold "gambling" events for charities?
7. Keep reading the "Resolution" below for MORE CRITERIA. I would love to know who sat around thinking all this up.
8. FYI...I wanted to read the Ordinance referenced in the resolution.. but when I did a SEARCH of the township website.. this is what appeared:
"no pages contain the words: zoning ordinance 569" I'm sure it is SOMEWHERE... but it would be nice if the document was included in the board packet. Maybe here:https://www.municode.com/library/mi/bloomfield_charter_township,_%28oakland_co.%29/codes/code_of_ordinances
In my opinion, if you are CHANGING an ordinance... it would nice to see the ORIGINAL... and exactly HOW it will be worded in the future.
9. Have questions or need answers from the Township? Sorry... they voted themselves a 4 day work week... they don't work on Friday. You'll have to wait until Monday.... or speak up and help get the Township get back to a 5 day work week... like the rest of us...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)