2009-01-31 / Editorials & Letters

'Watchdog' says rewind the tape for the truth

Editor:

Our "dog warden" Duval noted in a letter last fall that I "must be the director" of the "theater of the absurd." He added that the theatrics did not start until I attended the meetings. I say, let's hear what the audio tapes of the meetings, starting say Jan 2006 have to reveal about how the meetings were run. I did not come on the scene, plus attend each meeting, until latter part of 2006. That is when I began to realize (more like wake up) what was going on. So I agree, that is also "clearly on tape, so rewind!" Main point here is that his lynch mob crowd used to blame all of this "theater" on our newest trustee, but then when I started to agree with him and openly challenged the way the GOB's operate, I am tagged as the one that screwed up their quiet little township.

The dog warden now says I am a "partner in crime" (PIC), but fails to mention what crime I have been accused of committing. GOB Watkins has already accused me of being a "liar, thief and a cheat", plus stating "now you sh.. backwards" and something about we are "coming after you!" That is also "clearly on tape, so rewind!"

Would any readers consider this proper conduct for a elected public official, at a public meeting? Or could this sort of personal conduct create a very hostile meeting environment? Those are some pretty inflammatory and slanderous statements, some that one could certainly even call "fighting" words. But I am tagged as disrupting the meetings? GOB Watkins has gone even further than this with the sort of rude, crude, slanderous and personal attacks he has directed towards Trustee Chorpenning. Again "clearly on tape, so rewind!" So why are the meetings turning into a "theater of the absurd?" Oh, it must be me...I GOT IT!

To me the real crime here is that GOB`s seem to have a total disregard for the Ohio Revised Code (ORC) and Ohio Sunshine laws. What has gone on in reference to the Cooperrider Road turnaround issue (all the way back to Jan 1995) hinges on gross neglect of duty and severely undermines the integrity of the elected offices they hold. Not only did GOB Watkins conveniently forget about the original 1995 resolution and what was supposed to happen, but he was also party to two illegal road improvement actions. These actions were done without any sort of documented public deliberations or any formal vote by the board. There was also no formal coordination with county engineer nor the legal landowners. But of course, let's not have any more paper work thrown about, so as to formally document these actions properly and make this more complicated! That is just not "the way we have always done it". The fact is, no sort of formal public discussions/ meetings were ever held until the "special on-site meeting" with the county prosecutor in the spring of 2008.

But it gets better, the GOB`s even had the audacity to accuse me of "stealing their stones" and "damaging government property" at the exact area they had done their illegal road improvement on. The GOB's went so far as to put forth a formal Resolution to "make me put it back the way it was"... SAY WHAT?

That was just totally ridiculous and one trustee did vote "against" this resolution. Yes, it was Chorpenning, the guy that is accused of not voting for anything. If anyone is unclear as to the illegal parts, just read up on some of the ORC references, which are listed on website www.will-kern.com under the "Never ending story" tab. The GOB's obviously never mention the illegal actions they had taken all along though, since these sort of actions were nothing to be concerned about.

The really sad part is a 27 + year trustee, apparently still does not understand the ORC requirements, even to this day. At the Dec 2008 meeting GOB Watkins indicated that he supposedly talked to the county prosecutor about doing some "more" work (meaning another road improvement action) at this same site, making this the thid time now. He said he was told to "not" to do any more work there. The prosecutor obviously knows where we are now in the process and that he cannot just act on a road improvement action without adhering to all of the applicable ORC sections first. So I have to wonder, why would GOB Watkins even ask this question, does he still not get it yet?

Back in March 2008 I felt I had no choice but to take my case to court! An independent judge would easily see that the GOB's willfully and intentionally make misleading and even slanderous statements. That the GOB's actually disregarded or neglected to perform their official duties as outlined in the ORC and that these negligent actions lead to the issue ending up in court. Prior to taking such action, I did make a formal complaint about this to the county prosecutor, so he would be aware of where this was headed. The GOB's did rescind the ridiculous resolution, so I have to assume they got some sound legal advice from the county prosecutor's office. The prosecutor's office is now fully involved. With their help the whole turn-around debacle may finally come to an end now without wasting a judge's time. My hope is that, this time around, it will be done legally and in full compliance with all of the ORC requirements. Will "Watchdog" Kern Bowling Green Township

Return to top