READ THE ENTIRE MISLEADING ARTICLE HERE.
Have you seen the WFMZ report on Monday 6.26.23 Board meeting? Written by Gregory Purcell
What I saw in the room was the WFMZ reporter actually attending the meeting and what a hit piece they did on me.
No mention of the issues I raised concerning $327,000 written to the wrong vendor, the late charges for paying another invoice late, the early payment (by more than two weeks) of $45,000 to our Solicitor. (Contract specifically states payment on 6.30.23 but we payed on 6.12.23) Contract states "on or before 6.30.23". but why pay so early?)
Bell unilaterally threw me out of the meeting, instructed the Chief of Police to remove me. A break was ordered by Bell in order to facilitate my removal. I discussed it with the Chief, Bell put him in a difficult situation, Our Chief is a really good guy and I did not want to put him in this difficult situation. I came back and read a statement regarding what I believe is a concerted effort to silence me and to make the environment so toxic ( and it is) to persuade me resign as so many were "forced" to resign before me when you refuse to conform and support what "they" want you to do.
The WFMZ article is so biased and one sided it is not representative of what occurred. For example this part of the WFMZ article claims George Purcell wrote:
"Supervisor David Hughes was expelled from the meeting by Chair George Bell and Police Chief Matthew Hawley after he refused several requests by Bell to cease speaking so the meeting could return to the agenda. Hughes was later allowed to return when Bell said he intended only for Hughes to be removed for the vote on expenditures, not the entire meeting."
The vote on Expenditures was conducted before Bell went rogue, look at around 28:35 minutes of part1 of the meeting the vote was taken after I questioned issues with the payment, including a check for over $327,000 written to the wrong vendor, a late charge incurred on another invoice for late payment and the very early payment of $45,000 to our solicitor due 6.30 but paid on 6.12. but before they illegally expelled me.
Looking at this meeting and previous meetings you will see and hear numerous times where various board members and our manager interject into the meeting discussions without recognition from the Chair. Why , as I was attempting to get a clarification regarding a missing element not included in approvals would be an act of disrupting the meeting? To the point that Chair George Bell unilaterally took action to remove me from the meeting.
The article is further misleading because the claim I was allowed to return later was not an option. The Chief walked me out the front door, we discussed the issue, I got into my car and drove home. When I got home I began listening to the meeting and the claim I was not removed was an obvious attempt to cover up their egregious behavior.
I walked back in, sat in the audience and listen to them approve KMS to do our budgeting at a ridiculous hourly rate. A firm that our Manager has very close ties to as a former employee of theirs earlier this year , a firm we paid $9,500 to have the right to hire her as manager.
Look at the video, If you can hear me I said to Bell, "I am here as a citizen, I have no intention to disrupt your meeting" What did he do next? Look at the video...he invited me to sit at the table, unilaterally as the dictator he is.....invited me to attend a meeting that he never should have been able to expel me from to begin with.
I should have been allowed to express my concern before he rudely talked over my attempt to ask a point of reference regarding the agenda item for "APPROVALS" and that question was " Why are we no longer reviewing the treasurers report and approving it subject to audit?" (As we did for years)
I RETURNED on my own volition to return to this meeting. The expulsion was meant to be permanent. How do we/you know this....WATCH THE VIDEO AND WATCH AS THEY WAIT FOR ME TO PACK UP MY COMPUTER AND MY PAPER WORK......DO YOU REALLY THINK GEORGE BELL'S CLAIM : "Bell said he intended only for Hughes to be removed for the vote on expenditures, not the entire meeting." IS THIS A VALID OBSERVATION REPORTED BY THIS VERY BIASED REPORTER?
It is unfortunate that the reporter George Purcell has been reporting only one side of the issue, in my opinion incredibly biased.