|
Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Report What Happened Last Year Submit Feedback Home |
First I need to apologize. I didn't want to talk about Mr. Menz any longer. I stated as much in an article I wrote on March 17th. Click here to read. Part of what you are going to see here would have been posted but I elected not to post it for the reasons I have stated in the 3/17 article. But evidently I need to do so based on several feedbacks that have NOT been verified but since they keep coming in from the same person I feel the need to respond in some manner. Normally I would use the same technique as I did with Melita Ellington and put ALL the dialog in front of you to judge but most of the feedback emails I get from the opposition really don't care about dialog or debates, just insults, foul language and the like. So Mr. Menz I do apologive for doing this but evidently the issue needs further proof. Again I am sorry. This is what I was sent. "theirfeedback-y-dissolve-amelia: Honor is not a word to throw around lightly. Those are some big lines your are reading between again. As "one of those neighbors", I would like to know what the plan is for the pond as well. Simply put Mr Menz was stating that Pierce probably didnt know what they would do with it. I am pretty sure that did not make the short list of most important issues to deal with at the time. When we bought this house in Sedona Ridge that was advertised as a pond...for fishing and relaxing. Not a lovely retention pond. Let's get rid of the outside issue first. If whoever you bought the property from didn't bother to tell you it wasn't a retention pond then they operate just as the Village Administration does. Gloss over the truth with something to deceive you into believing what they think will better help them sell you the property. Just as Menz did when he asked Rosser to deceive you all with doubt! THE FACT IS THAT YOUR "pond... for fishing and relaxing" IS A RETENTION POND! You can call it anything you like. You can do with it what you want. BUT YOU CANNOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT IT IS A RETENTION POND ANY MORE THAT YOU CAN CHANGE THE FACT THAT MENZ DID SOMETHING VERY CORRUPT! Simply put Mr. Menz knew exactly what the pond was and what could be done with it and he deliberately told Rosser to deceive you! Now if you accept the fact that your Administrator tells Rosser to deliberately deceive you for the SOLE purpose of enhancing his position in the upcoming election then you "simply" deserve everything you get! Now let's look at what Menz knew about the "fishing pond". Please read the following emails. The first part covers a different issue so if your just interested in the pond skim down to the second page where it says "PS."    
Now if there is any doubt in anyones mind that Menz didn't know what the pond was and that "all properties must adhere to" then keep reading it until you get it! The feedback sender then says: "Tim Rosser is very honorable, to question ones honor without merit is shameful and dishonoralbe on your part. Stick to the tangable stuff you can find, pick and chose our fights wisely, sir. I would take the advice that your lawyer had when he spoke that you should take down that part of this forum, about Mr Rosser." First let's get the obvious assumptions. I do not have a lawyer. Haven't needed on since some crooked surveyor tried to bill me for $100.00 that I didn't owe him and that was around 1974. Cost me about $500 to make that right but I will not be cheated by crooks any more than I will be governed by liars. So the statement "I would take the advice that your lawyer had when he spoke that you should take down that part of this forum, about Mr Rosser is about as truthful as the diatribe coming out of 44 W Main. Our feedback person should run for council, perfect fit wouldn't you say? Now that we have the rediculous stuff behind us let's get on to Rosser. First thing is to read what I actually said and not the fiction presented by the feedback person. Click here to view. Now the statement I made is "I ask you now, is that what you would call honorable? The only question remains is whether Rosser followed orders and raised the doubt! I have a public records request in for Rosser's answer. We already know how honorable Menz is, right! Now we are going to find out how Rosser defines honor!" The first sentence "I ask you now, is that what you would call honorable?" has nothing to do with Rosser but refers to the action itself. The second part simply says I am going to get public records of all of Rosser's emails to see if he did indeed do what Menz asked him to do. I NEVER ONCE SAID HE WAS DISHONORABLE! Of course I can't ask him now can I? Oh I suppose I could wait until the next council meeting if I can make it and I wanted to WAIT that long. His email address has been taken off the Village website and besides he has been advised not to talk about the issue of dissolving the Village! Now the other thing about this situation. I tend to judge people by my standards and perhaps I should'nt do this. What I would have done if I were a council member is exactly what I did as a resident! Demand Menz's resignation. If as a council member Menz would not have resigned I would have resigned and gone public with the whole thing as I was trying to do when Menz actually resigned! What did Rosser do? Was he responsible for Menz's resignation? I have no idea! The feedback sender should be offering Rosser the advice about getting an attorney because I'm not taking any of it back!!! __________________ |
|
|
|