Bark Park - Miami Township -- Spending for the dogs

On April 21st Miami Township will be celebrating the opening of their Bark Park in Miami Meadows Park. Does Miami Township really need a "park" for dogs? Don't people have yards in which to let Rover roam? More importantly what was the justification for this expenditure of public funds?

Dave Duckworth, Township Administrator, is quoted as saying "Over the past five to seven years, we've had numerous people call,” said township administrator David Duckworth. “I've probably fielded over 100 calls wanting to know if we were going to do something for dogs, specifically a dog park.” Ok, then let's break that down:
100 calls over five years = less than two per month (1.67)
100 calls over seven years = just over one per month (1.19)

The justification for spending over $65K* for the bark park centers on receiving less than two calls per month? How does he know it wasn't the same person calling each and every month? Were these calls even documented? Sure doesn't sound like a reliable way to justify spending public dollars. Now that the park is built, how much will the Township pay workers for pooper scooper duty?

I distinctly remember being induced to vote for the Park Levy (which is funding this facility) based on the dangling of "spray parks" for children. What happened to that priority?? Furthermore, there is a private entity (off of the Bypass) which provides a dog park. Why is the Township duplicating services that are offered in the private sector?

*2005 Park Levy Fund $35,000 allocated to Dog Park
2006 Park Levy Fund $30,000 allocated to Dog Park

Censorship in Miami Township - MTTV

It is interesting that Miami Township has its own television station facilities (Miami Township TeleVision - MTTV) and the ability to record whatever it chooses, however, public comment at the end of Trustee meetings is recorded but not televised on MTTV programming. The cities of Loveland and Milford (and many other jurisdictions) televise their public comments. Perhaps it is that the leadership in other jurisdictions are more transparent than their Miami Township counterparts. Perhaps the Miami Township Trustees are afraid of the people finding out what is really going on. In fact, I would urge each and every citizen in the Township to attend one of these meetings - held the 3rd Monday of the month at the Civic Center @ 7pm -- to see their local government officials in action. Two thoughts may rise to the surface:

1. The agendas published in advanced of the meeting for residents are vague (and that is putting it nicely). Generally there is no discussion and is rarely ever any dissent in the discussions or votes.

2. If you attend you may find a pattern of issues that the public brings to the public forum. Issues that will never see the light of day. There is strong evidence that there are systemic abuses in the township as it relates to zoning issues. I should also mention that the trustees do not act very favorably if you question any of their decisions or actions. One trustee will get very red in the face like he is going to explode!

****

The following information was forwarded to me. The first two justifications cite national level research (I'd like to see the citations). That's just wonderful, but locally, other jurisdictions are televising public comments. What is it that these Trustees have to hide??? The third justification gets at the heart of the matter: DO NOT QUESTION THE AUTHORITY AND DECISION MAKING CAPABILITIES OF YOUR LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS. GOT THAT????

Question: Why isn’t the public comment section of the Trustee Meeting televised? I would be interested in hearing the “official” justification.


Answer: Response as received by Tim Pennington, Miami Township, Community Relations Director:

As you are aware, we began cablecasting the Miami Township Board of Trustees meetings in December. We will also air the monthly zoning commission and zoning appeals meetings, too, starting in February. As part of my responsibilities in overseeing the government access channel (Miami Township Television) for the township, I made the decision to air just the business portion of the monthly meetings for several reasons:

1. I do not want to impede any resident who wants to speak during the comment section because they do not want their comments aired on the channel. Some of what the residents say are often personal in nature, sometimes involving neighborly disputes or similar issues. While their comments are certainly part of the official record, there has been much discussion among various other government access channels in the U.S. about this issue, and many channels have decided to only air the business portion of the meeting to which I feel the public is most interested.

2. What I have heard and read from other government access channels across the country [BUT NOT LOCALLY] is that viewer surveys are strong that residents are truly interested in watching the business portion of their local government meetings, and not in resident comments that often have subject matter that does not affect the entire township. [IF THERE IS NOTHING SUBSTANTIVE IN THE BUSINESS PORTION DUE TO LACK OF INFORMATION WHERE'S THE HOOK?]

3. As well, some speakers both in Miami Township, other places locally in Greater Cincinnati and across the country have utilized the microphone at these meetings to make false and potentially slanderous statements against other residents and township employees. While these comments, once uttered, certainly become part of an audio tape of the meeting, I do not feel it is appropriate to provide a platform for personal attacks against other residents and township employees and to replay it onto the government access channel airwaves.

It should also be noted that in the instance of a public hearing during a Trustee meeting, such as with zoning cases or other required hearings, where public comment is required by statute, those speakers will be included as part of the cablecast as part of the business portion of the meeting.

Rest assured, any resident may come to a Board of Trustee meeting and watch and listen to the business portion as well as the public comment section. In all circumstances, those speakers’ names and the topic of their comments are recorded into the official public record, which we publish on our website for anyone to read. In addition, if residents who do not attend meetings wish to hear a speaker’s comments in its entirety, an audiotape of the entire meeting is available for any resident to listen, if they wish.

Business as Usual - One Party Rule in Clermont County

A poll recently cited in the Cincinnati Enquirer (“Poll: 2-party rule best for Ohio: Residents favor Strickland for solving state's problems.”) March 1, 2007 stated:

"... 73 percent of Ohioans said they prefer "divided party
control," while 20.5 percent want "one-party control."

Would a similar finding apply to local and county politics if the question were posed? Ponder this: while Heimlich and Pepper were duking it out, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for the Hamilton County Commissioner’s race, Scott Croswell (incumbent Clermont County Commissioner) "ran" unopposed in Clermont County.

The three Commissioners are of the same party in Clermont -- who is overseeing what these three bobbleheads are doing? I say “bobbleheads” because I have this image of them all shaking their heads in unison on whatever it is they are voting on. Check out the votes in their minutes. I can’t recall when I have ever seen dissention among the votes: "Yes, Yes, Yea." I for one think that it is high time for there to be divided party control in this county. Where is the accountability? Where is the responsibility to the citizens?

At the township level, Township Trustees are elected on a non-partisan basis, but let’s face it: they’re all cut from the same cloth – at least in Miami Township. Voters in this county need to get a clue and find out what is going on because the resources of the county are being squandered in the existing culture of corruption that runs from the County leadership down to the townships.

Unfortunately, this is very unlikely because there is blind allegiance to the GOP. Sadly, at least for the Clermont Commissioner’s races, the only letter most Clermont Countians can read is (R). I suppose it is only a matter of time before something like ‘Coingate’ brings these insulated leaders down. We can only hope.

Nepotism and Patronage is Alive & Well in Clermont Co.

I would like to bring to your attention several matters as they relate to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission is the body appointed by the revered Clermont County Board of County Commissioners. It is the body responsible for upholding the County's subdivision regulations (among other things) in the unincorporated areas of Clermont County; in reality it means they APPROVE a whole lotta subdivisions. With all of the growth in the county this body has enormous power that affects our day to day lives (read congestion, taxes, sprawl). Somewhere in the bowels of a building in Batavia lives the gigantic rubberstamp they pull out to approve nearly every plan that comes before them. Here are some questions every citizen of the county should be asking their beloved Commissioners:

Is it legal for a County employee (Roger Maham) to be on the Planning Commission, let alone to be the Chairperson? Even if it is not prohibited, does this portray to the citizens that the County has any impartiality as it relates to development approvals? Of course not! Secondly, in addition to being a county employee, the chairperson is the brother-in-law of a County commissioner (Scott Croswell) – this is nepotism. Additionally, patronage is so clearly exhibited by the fact that nearly all have made generous contributions to the Commissioner's campaigns.

A Planning Commission member (former member C. Doug Walker - now Union Township Administator - ain't that cozy?) who is a spouse of a County Commissioner (Mary Walker) does not give the impression of impartiality either. Nor does having the son (Mark Walker) of a County Commissioner as a member on any subcommittee or Committee give the impression of impartiality. Again, another example of nepotism. Surely there are qualified people that are not family members of the County Commissioners who are able to fulfill these committees. No?

Members of the Clermont County Planning Commission have voted in favor of approval for subdivision plans for which their employers are responsible for the design and engineering. Clearly a egregious example of conflict of interest. But, hey, it's ok, it's Clermont County and we treat our developers good out here.

Planning Commission members regularly add ad hoc provisions to recommendations with no rational nexus to anything provided in staff reports or testimony. It seems that these additions are made to help out a buddy - who isn't even present - most always these last minute insertions diluted the recommendations of Planning staff.

The Planning Commission should not be an arm of the political machine granting approvals for political contributors or to further the agenda of the Commissioners. It should be a body that upholds the rules and regulations (i.e. subdivision regulations) that were created to protect the community. I, for one, as a resident of the County am outraged by the nepotism and patronage that the County Commissioners so flamboyantly endorse. The people of Clermont County so much deserve better.