Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Home RSS
 
 
 

Rayland Council

February 19, 2013
Times Leader

Dear Editor,

This letter is in response to the article "Rayland Council Advances Deannexation" in the local newspaper. "This concerns the Narrows Road section of Rayland."

The article states "several Narrows Road residents were present at the meeting and made no comments on the matter." The reason for this is contained in later paragraph.

In other matters, Mayor Tammy Morelli, read a statement in regarding public participation, noting that members of the public are welcome to attend council meetings, but there are no provisions in the Ohio Revised Code, granting the public the right to speak at the meeting and that the public is not permitted to become disruptive." The chairs where the public sits have been removed by order of the village administrator. Who decides what disruptive is? If someone says something the the administration does not agree with, is that being disruptive?

The article does not mention that the "Sponhaltz Addition" would not be de-annexed with the rest of the Narrows Road. The article also mentions the Jan. 17, 2013 meeting at which a member of the public was considered to be "argumentative and combative" which allegedly disrupted the council meeting. That was me ... at a Town Hall meeting the village council had the Rayland Fire House. They asked village residents at the meeting for their help in trying to come up with ideas on how to save cost to the village. So at the council meeting on Dec. 17, 2012, I put my agenda in to speak. I had some ideas on some cost saving for the village. My suggestions was to sell the dump truck "which is barely used." I also suggested to eliminate the position of Village Administrator, because it is not required by law. This would save the village $2,400 a year.

The village administrator told me to shut-up twice and said I was crazy. After I had spoken, the administrator's wife, also a member of council asks the solicitor if she could press charges on me, which he replied, "no". This is a public meeting.

When the meeting was adjourned, the administrator's wife got up and started towards me. Another village resident was between us and was assaulted by her.

I was verbally threatened by her. A person like this should not be in public office; and, the mayor said I was "argumentative and disrupted."

The village has a lot of problems to solve and the debt problem keeps mounting, so with that being said, every time a resident wants to make a comment on how to help, they get considered, "disruptive" and are banned from talking at council meetings.

If the spending continues the way it has been going, maybe we should dissolve the village and let the township take over.

Chuck Sudvary

Rayland

 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web