Editorial missed the point of what's wrong in Boardman

Editorial missed the point of what's wrong in Boardman
EDITOR:
Your April 11 editorial gently counseled two Boardman trustees, Robyn Gallitto and Kathy Miller, on the use of diplomacy. They placed a written reprimand in Police Chief Patterson's file for misuse of township equipment. The chief had e-mailed two pages of law class notes on his office computer. The Vindicator has missed the point. According to the chief, his resignation was demanded first -- lest any "negative information" be placed in his file to "hinder future opportunities."
I agree that these trustees "are trying to change the culture of work in the township" and are moving in a "new direction." While chanting "financial emergency" these trustees have so far cost Boardman taxpayers over $100,000 additional expense, including a costly buyout of our township administrator's employment contract. Miller stated: "We really felt we were headed for a financial meltdown." Trustees are responsible for expenditures, not administrators.
The "financial meltdown" exists only in Miller's head as anyone might attest who has endured her excruciatingly endless incomprehensions of financial data during township meetings. We have gone 10 years with no levies and the proposed 2008 levy has long been projected. Miller is more harmless pursuing her weary agenda of beautification than solving nonexistent budget crises. After four years and counting, there is not a single flowerpot in evidence for her unfocused activities.
Gallitto and Miller profess to believe their new "belt-tightening" fiscal responsibility policies are causing all the unrest and discord. If the near-riot uproar at the recent meeting reflects disagreement with political fiscal responsibility, Boardman citizens are certainly a unique type of taxpayer.
Newspapers should take care relying upon information from this pair. Especially as misstatements have come to light. Last year there was a flap when Miller insisted on attending labor contract negotiations and was prevented by Trustees Tom Costello and Elaine Mancini. An opinion from the county prosecutor held that trustees could not vote on labor contracts if they had any involvement with negotiations. During the elections, a Vindicator editorial praised candidate Gallitto for obtaining an Ohio Ethics Commission opinion that supported Miller's right to attend negotiations. This editorial endorsed Gallitto and Miller and strongly recommended against Tom Costello. Costello and Mancini were lambasted for relying on the prosecutor's legal opinion and being "only too happy to slam the door on their colleague."
Therefore, I was surprised Gallitto and Miller did not sit in on the latest labor negotiations. Mrs. Miller said she was precluded by Gain's opinion and claimed to know nothing of The Vindicator endorsement article. My repeated requests to Gallitto for a copy of the commission's opinion on this topic were ignored. In open meeting I asked Gallitto if she had shown the opinion to Miller -- on whose behalf she had obtained it -- and she said "no". I asked if The Vindicator had read it and she said she had "explained it to them." I knew Gallitto did have an ethics commission opinion on conflict of interest issues relating to her husband being a Boardman policeman, and I was always careful to distinguish this supposed labor negotiations opinion from that one. Her answers sought to maintain the fiction there was a separate opinion.
It has become clear to me that no such opinion refuting the township's position exists. The ethics commission says this topic is not their venue. The refuting legal opinion was Gallitto's own, one that lacked credibility even for her, as she certainly never acted upon it. And as for the conflict of interest advisory -- it was first violated right after her election, according to Chief Patterson's account of her visit to his office.
MARCELLE SVENSON
Boardman
Oversight is lacking in D.C.
EDITOR:
Every day there is a new revelation about wrongdoing by the executive branch of our government. I feel that it is time that an investigation is commenced by a party outside of government. It is obvious that the controlling party in Congress will not investigate its own president.
Our government cannot survive without the checks and balances the founders placed in the Constitution. The Congress now refuses to do its duty to oversee the executive branch. This sets a very dangerous precedent.
The next person to hold the office may not be as much to your liking. Would you want him to do anything he wants without fear of oversight? I think not.
PAUL SHANABARGER
New Springfield