The first thing I hope you consider is the format of asking questions within her letter. Do you wonder why that is something I am asking you to consider?
The second thing is her attempt to discredit the current board; is that really new from the Jeff Gonyo group?
Can we take a look at the first silly item? Sometime in February, if my memory is correct, but certainly sometime since January, I received one of the two phone calls I received to date from Danah Zoulek. The other call was on the day she learned she got one extra vote.
Danah Zoulek said many things, but the most surprising was when she questioned me about how I wrote Richfield Today posts in the spring of 2015. Was that the year she rousingly lost the election for Richfield Village Trustee?
Rock Brandner 1475
Danah Zoulek 712
Sandy Voss 1583
Source: Washington County Web Site - Elections
|File Size:||1102 kb|
Now I see; she, or someone else, has Susan Brushafer writing in the same questioning manner. Do you think Danah Zoulek ever told Susan about our conversation and how silly this would look? Maybe Susan did not discuss this questioning Letter to the Editor with Danah Zoulek but only with Bill Meyers? Who else from their group, short though his tenure was, would know the rules regarding being an elected official? Oh yes, was Greg Galinsky only elected for one term? Has Jeff Gonyo bothered to learn those rules?
Susan, thanks for the questions, Imitation is the best form of flattery!!!
The second item is the most disturbing from this woman's letter. The allegations, in a portion of her letter, are noted below.
I'm curious as to the content of trustees' meetings outside of the official meetings. Anyone who has held a job in government or corporate America knows there is always discussion and, many times, decisions made before the official, public meeting. Is our Board fearful that two new trustees, regardless of who they are, might inhibit current practices? How often do trustees recuse themselves from votes because of conflicting interests, knowing the issue only needs three votes to pass? Yes, it will cost taxpayers more for two additional trustees - isn't the cost worth it to have new eyes watching what our current board decides is correct for its citizens.
What did she mean by "held a job in government"? Did she mean elected official or hired staff? If she meant elected officials, should she have said that? Generalities get you nowhere. There are rules for elected officials that do not apply to government staff or to corporate America. Did she not know that? Oh, how silly to lead people down a path you might know nothing about.
The allegation that, "board members always have discussion and many times decisions made before the official meeting" is most disturbing, but really silly when one knows WI state law. It is obvious she does not know WI State law.
Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 426, Sub chapter 19, 19.82 (2) "Meeting" means the convening of members of a governmental body for the purpose of exercising the responsibilities, authority, power or duties delegated to or vested in the body. If one-half or more of the members of a governmental body are present, the meeting is rebuttably presumed to be for the purpose of exercising the responsibilities, authority, power or duties delegated to or vested in the body. The term does not include any social or chance gathering or conference which is not intended to avoid this subchapter.
Does Jeff Gonyo know that state law?
Having been on the County board does Bill Meyers know that law? Is there a lack of communication within this rag tag group supporting Danah Zoulek, Gil Frank and the two Referendums? Susan, did you check the law before you wrote this letter? Or perhaps did someone just use your name?
Are there any endorsement names on Danah Zoulek February election mailer that were just used and not approved before publication by the person? If you question that question you might want to call each of the persons named and ask them.
Are you concerned about Susan's comment regarding the need to recuse oneself when conflict of interest items are on the agenda? Recusing oneself is done following Richfield's Village Code of Ethics and Roberts Rules of Order. So, if it is so bad to recuse oneself, what is she expecting Danah Zoulek to do if ever elected? Violate the law?
So, finally someone of this rag tag group admits "it will cost taxpayers more for two additional trustees - isn't the cost worth it." Is this statement a clue that they do not coordinate any public communication? Is it a clue that they knew all along it would cost Richfield residents more money if the referendums pass? Did they tell the people who signed the petition that is would cost taxpayers more? What did Jeff Gonyo and Danah Zoulek say to residents when they got the signatures? Has someone lost the message of the referendum? See referendum question below in red.
Shall the petitioned Charter Ordinance be adopted which would expand the size of the Village Board from five "5" members to seven "7" members and freeze the total Villaqe Board compensation to exactly the compensation cost of the previous five "5" person Village Board?
Source: Referendum itself.
Have the Citizens of Richfield now received enough information to decide how they will vote on April 5th?
Note: The question format was originally mine. Susan, Thanks for the imitation!!
Did I ask enough questions?