2009-01-24 / Editorials & Letters

'Watchdog' makes an offer to the dog warden


In dog warden Duval's November 22 letter he stated, "Can you imagine the emails she has received from this man and the watchdog? They are usually very long and filled with rudeness, disrespectfulness, and derogatory comments."

Obviously, I disagree with this totally outrageous and libelous assertion. But now that he has put it out there, I am game; let's see the FACTS! How about the dog warden producing some or all of these emails and letters, which I supposedly sent to his wife? I suggest he send these documents to an independent party for review/ comment. I say forward these to The Beacon, Attn: Charlie Prince. I believe he would be agreeable to fill this particular role for us and provide an independent opinion to the readers. This is a fair way of settling the dogwarden's deliberately libelous comments. So will our dogwarden respond to this challenge? As the saying goes...."Only time will tell!"

I only ask one thing in return! Once these documents are received at The Beacon, I want an opportunity to personally verify that any of the supplied documents were indeed penned by me, for quite obvious reasons. This should not present any problems, if everything is on the up and up. Being a past Quality Assurance type, I still believe in two old QA motto's "trust...but verify" and also "In God we trust....all others bring data!" Once the dog warden shares these emails and we get the response I fully expect to obtain on the review of the data, can I expect to get a written apology?

I am baffled by what our dogwarden means by writing, "But they are trying to quiet my opinion. Now are they open to new opinions or not?" How exactly are "they" doing that? Who are "they" anyway? I have put my facts, data and opinions out there, just like he has and as far as I know, there has been no attempt to stop anyone from doing so. So what exactly is this referring to? How am I quieting anyone else's opinions by responding in kind. I am only providing as they say....."the rest of the story", to his completely unfounded, biased, misleading and unfactual opinion letters.

The dog warden, calling me via phone, informing me that he has hired a lawyer & threatening me with a lawsuit is doing what? Over what? My letters to the editor and information requests being sent to the elected fiscal officer of the township (his wife), in order to do basic research? Or is it that I dared to send her follow-up letters, which I should not have had to initiate. I have given her many a pass on this already!

On several occasions I certainly could have taken the township to the Court of Common Pleas over some of these late and even incomplete PUBLIC records requests. I could have easily won my case and had the Judge compel that the records be provided. But then, it would have been at an additional cost to the township. Or is it because I wrote (see my May 24 2008 letter) that his wife seems to think she can make contractual changes on the township's health insurance without any sort of public discussion nor a formal vote by the board?

Also noteworthy is that she issued the first illegal Watkins medicare reimbursement check. This was without any apparent effort to review the short applicable Ohio Revised Code sections, let alone without any public discussion prior to starting the payments in Oct. 2005. Does anyone else wonder how she was ever notified to begin this action without this being formally requested by GOB Watkins in a public meeting? Is this not public business? Are we not expending public funds here? I say, let the "sun shine" in just a little!

When it comes to being ATTACKED, this is a case of "the pot calling the kettle black". That is really something, since the GOB`s and their lynch mob crowd have done nothing but attack Trustee Chorpenning and then me, once I became an ally to his cause.

What do you call the past illegal actions and slanderous comments made against me by the GOB's? Apparently these are justified since I dared to disagree with them and dared to run for trustee. Or is it that I eventually rose up and actually dared to defended myself? I held off because I did not want to be tagged as this horrible person that took the township to court and cost the township extra money, when my goal is to have even more money available to make this township a better place for all residents.

I'm quite certain that this would be the GOB lynch mob spin on the issue. It would not matter that I was correct and that they did not meet the legal requirements of the law, which each public official signed up for when they ran for elected office. As many now realize, following the Ohio Revised Code and accountability is something that has been missing for a long time in our quiet little township.

Will "Watchdog" Kern Bowling Green Township

Return to top