City Council Outcome

I have been trying to follow the news re: the outcome of the council mtg & from what my understanding is that the Mr.Lang & a the city attorney did a GREAT miss justice to a city officer. They put the words charges & allegations out there publicly when all they were, was some concerns? Did they have all the information before? Are they out to make him look bad? Does Mr.Lang not have an ounce of professionalism in him? Where was the Police Commission in all of this? Don't we as a city have the commision to deal with Police issues? I also heard that our city attorney relied on info Mr.Lang gave him to make a legal decision...shouldn't attorneys do their own research before rendering legal decisions? Is this the guy who represents the city of ORtonville? I am curious...are all agenda's of planned executive sessions made public? That's gotta cause some distress for those people...what about HIPAA laws or employee confidentiality? somewhat sounds like a smear campaign maybe?

I also heard that at least 2, if not 3 people requested that changes be made in the city council minutes as Mr.Lang did not record them correctly....I think this was also addressed on a another topic...but does this happen often in our city council minutes? If he is not able to accurately take mintues, does that reflect on his ability to do the rest of his job? Should someone who is not involved in the meeting be taking minutes? Did we have this many problems with the previous administrator....sure doesn't seem that way and they have her back in the office trying to help the new one out after they forced her to retire.

Anyone else have thoughts on this? Did I hear wrong from the "word on the street" about the outcome of the council? There are sure a lot of wonderful people in this town, but there sure seems to be alot more bad apples popping up. Whats happening to Ortonville? Aren't adults supposed to be setting examples for kids?

Misunderstood you are really accurate in your thoughts. The Mayor has totally politicized this department in a wrongful way. It is malicious on the part of the mayor to have an employee placed on the carpet in a public meeting when a police commission exists. When a mayor is willing to risk his entire reputation for this stunt you have to wonder what was the hidden agenda. I have always considered the mayor as a friend, but he acts as though he is above the law.

Let me make myself clearer. Since I have been in Ortonville there have been two similiar issues that have arisen. The city attorney and mayor resolved and I believe with the assistance of the League of Municpalities a few years ago, that the Police Commission was first. There have been no changes in the law, how can the decision be different? What happened to the precedent? It appears that Lang, Johnson and Ash were not following the precedent and acted as though the law did not exist.

Even when confronted there was no justification or no attempt to correct these three men's actions. The real question is did they violate the victims "due process" rights?

Perhaps the real reason for this is based on the conflicts of interests these men have. The actions of these three men were vindictive and contrary to law based on precedent.

I also wonder if this party's "due process" rights were violated. I'm still in shock that a mayor can discuss complaints on a city employee without that employee having a chance to defend themselves. Then to publicly discuss these complaints on the airwaves. Does this mean that if there is any complaints made against any city employee, no matter what department or business, they will be discussed in public without "due process"?
Didn't the mayor and city council just approve decrease hours in the police department? And if so, why is it now the mayor is whining that there is inadequate police coverage. As far as the school incident, I believe that the chief of police was going to be reamed no matter what the outcome. Just think if the chief would of called other officers, the mayor and city council would of reprimanded him because he went over budget. Also, just think since the mayor and city council decrease the police dept budget (and even talk about deleting the department) what is going to happen when we have all the power plant workers come here.....oh wait, thats gonna be more golfers (more money) for the golf course, right?
Talking about the golf course, I would be pretty ticked off seeing my hard earned money that I paid into the sewer fund being used for someones fun. Then especially if the sewer backed up into my basement, then get told that first, there's no money in the sewer fund and second, it was my problem because I caused it by putting wipes down the sewer...which I have never done!
My sentiments also, missunderstood, what is happening to Ortonville!!? There are alot of good people here, trying to make something of Ortonville like the Arts Council, the Kwanis, the many businesses and their employees who support this town, etc. I have lived here most all of my adult life and I have never seen such sheganians going on.

It would seem to me that if a public servant hobbles the police then complains about lack of police, that servant is engaged in a strategy to manufacture justification for sweeping out the current force (and its cost) and 'solving' the 'problem' with a different police force. Gee, if law enforcement was contracted out, it would free up budget for the golf course, wouldn't it?

I'll bet once the 'solution' is in place, suddenly law enforcement effectiveness will drop off this servant's radar like a rock. Not very forthright or honest, is it?

Tee time at 11!
Zorro

LittleDeb,
I believe you are referring to the thread on the sewer fund being moved to the golf course. See here.
There is a thread on the city wanting to make cuts to the police here.

Your reasoning is sound. For the City Council to be talking about cutting back on the police coverage and then to complain that they are not covering everything is disingenuous.

I didn't hear the story on the airwaves. What did Mayor Blair talk about?