2011-01-08 / Editorials & Letters

Bowling Green Township ‘watchdog’ is back

Editor:

It has been quite some time since my last Beacon letter. But lest we forget, the Bowling Green Township “good ole boys” (GOB’s) are still making up their own rules as they go along. Only now, they don’t even have one lone trustee who will stand up and say enough is enough. Our elected township officials are once again discussing a hot topic for many - their golden Cadillac health insurance benefit package. This being a PUBLIC meeting, at the prescribed public comment time, I asked the board of trustees a simple question. Given the huge amount of our tax dollars being spent for this extra perk, is anyone on the board going to offer a motion this year to have the trustees pay for say 10%, 20% or 30% of the cost of their perks? FACT: One recent trustee (Jeff Chorpenning) did have the guts to bring this option to the table, but he never got a second to his motion, so it obviously died on the vine.

What was the GOB’s response? Trustees Watkins and VanBuren both evaded the question all together, commenting instead that since I was currently not residing in the township that I had no right to even have any public comment time...REALLY? Exactly where is that spelled out? It should be noted that I do still own property in the township and I do pay my taxes.

But our GOB’s have a habit of denying anyone the common courtesy of public comment, if they dare to raise a question they do not like or someone dares to disagree with them. Bottom line, this was a simple YES or NO answer after all. As normal, we did hear another long winded tale and flat out lie from GOB Watkins. He stated that he had wanted to drop off the insurance to save township money but (Chorpenning via prosecutor) said he could NOT. Say what? FACT: There is no law saying Watkins has to TAKE the insurance AND there is a current resolution that allows this with a LEGAL reimbursement. Watkins CHOSE not to get a reimbursement versus insurance. It is not an in-term change because there was a reimbursement amount set when he went into office, but it was only $200. So whatever reimbursement was in place when he went into office applies for his four-year term. He just can’t get the UPDATED (which was a huge INCREASE, so remember this) reimbursement amount until start of his NEXT term. Nothing says he can’t drop the insurance at any time, plus nothing says he can’t be reimbursed for the amount allotted on the resolution that was in place when he started his term (again...$200).

So if/when he is re-elected, will he still stay on the insurance claiming he is “saving” the township money? When his new term starts he can then get the UPDATED reimbursement amount versus what he claims is higher price insurance that he gets now. He turned this into saying Chorpenning had the prosecutor say he CAN’T be reimbursed. This is spinning a plain LIE. Who do you think made the motion to recently INCREASE the reimbursement amount? Why do you think this was done? Watkins said he was dropping off the township insurance last year, but as soon as he found out he would LEGALLY only be able to get a $200 reimbursement, he quickly declined that option. FACT: This reimbursement is LEGAL versus the totally ILLEGAL extra Medicare reimbursement Watkins had been collecting for several years, until he was called out that. Anyone connecting the dots yet?

My next topic will be on ORC 519.04 Township zoning commission, since our GOB’s have seen fit to violate this ORC on several occasions. Incidentally, even though they have tried hard, they have not been successful in stopping the video taping of public meetings, so there is full color video evidence available for anyone to see/hear.

Will (Watchdog) Kern
Heath

Return to top