Chief Metzger "reclaiming leadership...from a few bad apples."

"...a few bad apples." !!!!

I keep reading that remark and every time it brings me to tears, sadness, anger, frustration, disbelief--I cannot tell you the range of emotion. I do not know why anyone would even want to be a police officer anymore in the community of Sylvania Township. For, be sure, those so-called "bad apples" so callously and carelessly named are genuinely good police officers.

Since Sgt. Bob Colwell's name is included in that article and he has been the most recent police officer with charges brought against him by the new chief (the one with the questionable background), I am assuming the trustees include him in that batch of "bad apples."

I wonder if the father of a 16-year-old girl, Jeremy Quinn's victim, would think that of Sgt Bob Colwell, one of the detectives who investigated and brought this vicious man to trial after raping and sodomizing the apple of his eye?

I wonder if the two young girls who had to crawl through a window 2 weeks before Christmas to find their father shot and killed on the living room floor would think that of Sgt. Bob Colwell after he investigated and brought their father's killer to trial. No doubt, their father was the apple of their eye. I know first-hand the care the investigators involved took with those 2 young girls in their trauma. It was genuine and it was moving.

Sgt Bob Colwell is a strong police officer. He is a loyal, committed, dedicated police officer--a persona of law enforcement. No doubt, to the many victims, to the many people he has protected and continues to protect in the community of Sylvania Township--Sgt. Bob Colwell is NOT a "bad apple."

So look again--because the real "bad apples" are not falling far from the administrative tree. Go up to Adrian, Michigan and ask their police officers. Go up to Huron Township, Michigan and ask their police officers. They are following these stories, and they are more than relieved that they no longer have to deal with the narcissistic leadership of one Chief Robert Metzger.

What made the difference for them? Their administration believed in their police officers. Their administration respected their police officers. Their administration did not refer to their officers, nor did they even consider to refer to them as "a few bad apples."

The families of these officers, of all the Sylvania Township police officers, are insulted and appalled because they know how much these officers give every day to the community of Sylvania Township. We are insulted and appalled at the level of disregard and disrespect shown our officers, because these men, these women, they are the apples of our eyes. We take great pride in the work they do to keep you safe, to bring resolution to your pain.

Please Sylvania Township community -- start asking questions. Hold your elected officials acountable. They are, after all, working for you. Do not let them brush aside your questions with comments like, "The trustees are saying that's enough."

Hopefully, we've learned our lesson about politicians, about politics, about what a democratic society really looks like, that politicians work for us and not the other way around. Hopefully, we have a renewed belief in the RIGHT to ask questions.

Please do not let your peacekeepers, your Sylvania Township Police Officers down. They have worked long and hard for you. They are far, far and away from being "bad apples."

Please go to Glass City Jungle under hyperlinks: and and start asking questions.

No votes yet

The below commentary is in response to this Blade article: Article published Thursday, November 13, 2008, Discipline creates rift in Sylvania Township police force.

In studying the application for Sylvania Township’s police chief and in going forward with the selection of that police chief, it takes more than a few spoken words with a few chosen former officers of that police chief to determine appropriate leadership. He cannot just “seem” experienced; he cannot just “seem” to be willing to tackle leadership problems but, rather, those things should be confirmed.

They should be confirmed in a professional, credentialed manner to the very best of your ability or your selection becomes arbitrary, uninformed, and given to chance.

If not done responsibly, if done because he is the friend of a friend, because he happened to interview well and; therefore, he “seemed” like the right choice, if not done finally with the guided merit of a proper background check, then the selection process shortchanges the “quality” of your selection, it shortchanges your law enforcement officers and, ultimately, it shortchanges the community that you were entrusted to care for.

To the Sylvania Township Trustees: You seemed to have begun the process responsibly. You paid, reportedly, somewhere in the neighborhood of $25,000 out of taxpayer money for the hiring of former Deputy Chief of the Toledo Police Department, Nate Ford, a police consultant, to study police operations in the Sylvania Township Police Department.

He found problematic areas of low-morale trickled down from upper management. In his report he awarded high compliments to the law enforcement officers and the public employees of Sylvania Township.

He stated, as documented in Sylvania Township Today’s quarterly newsletter, October 2006: “…Their honesty and candor and true desire to improve their department were unremarkable. “ He furthermore stated: “…the employees of the Sylvania Township Police Department are loyal employees who appreciate their position in public service and are committed to providing the best possible service to the residents of the community.”

The article furthermore quotes Mr. Ford as stating, “…the strength of the township police department is its employees. I can’t emphasize how impressed I was with the quality of the individuals employed by this department.”

Furthermore, you spent approximately $25,000 for the PAR group of Chicago in its hired search for the right candidate, the right chief to lead these above-mentioned “quality” people. Taxpayer money again, money well spent, one would hope.

The puzzling turn in your heavy-weighted responsibility came when Nate Ford, a professionally credentialed investigator, offered to do a background check on the finalist, Chief Metzger. He thought it would take approximately 2 days to complete a professional, therefore, thorough background check. He even offered other options, other credentialed investigators in an honest effort to avoid bias.

After all the taxpayer money spent in the search for just the right leader to complement the many years of exemplary work by your police officers and public employees, despite their endurance of multiple police chiefs in multiple years—this is where you apparently decided to drop the ball.

This is where trustee Pam Hanley decided she had the professional credentials to do an impartial background check on her finalist. Pam Hanley, who readily states in her Sylvania Township bio—“retired from the insurance industry upon the arrival of their first born child and 24years later re-entered the “work force” as a part time Realtor. “

Now—you will get no argument against a mother’s work, the energy and intelligence it takes to raise four fine children goes undisputed. Our hats are off to you.

However, to qualify you, yourself, as someone professionally credentialed to do a background check on someone who is, hopefully, going to be a credible, trusting, morale-building leader for this much deserved department for many years to come—raises questions of why?

Why, after all the money spent up to this point, did you feel you were the one to do this?

Accountability goes both ways. Respect goes both ways.

The Blade article refers to the trustees categorizing officers as “bad apples”—those officers have been faithful, committed law enforcement officers to your community long before your trusteeship, long before anyone thought to bring Chief Metzger’s subjective and discriminatory leadership into their department.

Therefore, to suddenly intimate that these men are renegade law enforcement that need a “no-nonsense leader to reform them” does not jive with their past records, does not jive with their contribution to law enforcement in Sylvania Township, does not jive to their earned respect from this community, does not jive.

These men are people with careers they cherish, people with good-standing reputations. They are not “bad apples” to be tossed out lightly and randomly after half-a-lifetime spent in public service as peacekeepers of Sylvania Township.

With the sudden rash of union grievance (like no other time); the sudden rash of early retirements, one of which was forced; the sudden rash of multi-officers looking for jobs in other departments—with this never having happened before in the history of STPD to this degree, who is to say, really, that the chief himself is not the “bad apple”?

In neglecting a professional, fully credentialed background check for the highest level of leadership in a police department, especially based on Nate Ford’s report, which again, designated primary morale problems originating with upper management, you owed it to the men and women who work in the Sylvania Township Police Department to go that one last extra mile.

Instead, you (trustees) decided he “seemed” like a leader. You in particular, trustee Pam Hanley decided you were “…not going to subject him to a background check.”

And—then—apparently, you did not.

In a police department, a chief of police with questionable credibility that precedes him is an issue. This chief’s background is riddled with questionable credibility.

A review of the archives of both the Daily Telegram in Adrian, Michigan and the Herald-News in Huron Township, Michigan will lead anyone who knows how to use the Internet down a path of reasonable concern, enough to raise a major eyebrow and question your decision-making.

This man’s leadership services were no longer wanted in Adrian, Michigan and, finally, in Huron Township, Michigan, the administration there was offering only a limited, probationary, one-year contract as they questioned his motive and methods in the termination of a public employee.

Sylvania Township—if you believe in your right to question. If you believe government, no matter how small or large, should be held to accountable, if you believe your public servants have the right to work in an environment that promotes trust and mutual respect, if you believe in the ideals of peacekeeping and the merit of law enforcement in your community—then it is your right to question.

Therefore, Sylvania Township Trustees—where is the full background check done on this police chief?

Sylvania Township community—this is a matter of public record.

Layers of newsprint and negative articles about good police officers, left undisputed because of a biased press, deserves, once and for all, a full and public disclosure.

Where is the background check for Chief Robert Metzger?

I posted a lengthy response at GCJ, but for brevity sake I will point out here that the Blade did not attribute that quote to anyone specific. I didn't say it and I've never heard Pam or Carol say it.

Dee Dee Liedel– I would like to respond to a portion of your blog commentary, and I will try very hard to be brief.

I am not going to dance around words. Rather, I think it is time to ask direct questions and hope for direct answers.

Dee Dee Liedel said: “So many arrows flung at us, let me respond to a few.”

In response to the arrow flinging comment—those flying arrows came from the township initially. I am just playing catch-up.

Therefore, in defense of my own arrow flinging, it is simply self defense. I am tired of the politics. I am tired of the politicians staging what they want the public to know and hiding behind politically correct phrasing to hide what they don’t want them to know.

I quickly or, not so quickly, realized I was playing on an unfair playing field—one in which you, the township administration, have had a free-range freedom of speech to catalogue your battle in public – namely one Toledo Blade. All along it has been nothing but “chalk one up for the township.”

Therefore, I had to take my battle to the blogs and, fortunately for me, I too have a few arrows in my quiver, most of which are not meant to wound people but more to take aim at righting a wrong.

Dee Dee Liedel said: “To make the Ford report sound as if everything was glowing except for low morale is disingenuous…”

There was really nothing at all “disingenuous” about my pointing out the portion of Nate Ford’s report aimed at his discovery of the kind of employees that worked, and still do work, for the Sylvania Township Police Department. I did not in any way misrepresent his “glowing” comments about those police officers and employees.

Furthermore, I never claimed to offer up a full representation of the entire Nate Ford report. I did what I did because the employees were being misrepresented in the press, in a way I found lacking truth and therefore, disingenuous.

I know there were other issues that needed attention, all noted within the body of that report and even that the department was not glowingly perfect, but I also know it didn’t require a stick of dynamite to fix what needed to be fixed.

Which brings us back again to that word—“disingenuous,” and a concerning statement you made in your blog that requires further questioning.

Dee Dee Liedel said: “The union presidents unanimously came back to us supporting Metzger as their choice.”

That statement is simply not true.

Do you recall at least two of the officers coming to you with serious reservations about Chief Metzger? Do you recall your adamant response? There was no unanimous endorsement of Chief Robert Metzger. Those officers were concerned about information gathered in a quick internet search of this candidate, and that’s all it took, one quick Google, to produce enough brow-raising elements of controversy to raise more than one red flag. In fact, they wanted you to slow down, to hold off on any offer until a complete and thorough background check could be performed—which, again, Nate Ford offered to do.

You, Dee Dee Liedel, said, “No.” (That was your vote.)

Then, Pam Hanley said, “No.” (That was her vote.)

In fact, Pam Hanley even went so far as to say she would “not subject him to a background check.”

Not subject him to a background check???

Is it disingenuous to say she barely knew the man?

Apparently, this man that you barely knew, at some point, separate from the officers’ ears, told you a story you could believe and that was simply good enough. And, for whatever reason, his stories have been simply good enough ever since.

When you preach concern of safety for the Sylvania Township community, which I might remind you, your peacekeepers take very seriously, how is it then that you can bring a man into the community to take the highest level position in the police department and, in the end, irresponsibly decide to simply not do a serious background check? To just take him at his word?

A limited amount of “Googling” for a person with limited amount of investigative skills yielded an awful lot in the negative column for Chief Robert Metzger back in 2006/2007. It’s a little buried now, but if you know where to look you can find it.

In the end, though, you hired a police chief with compromised credibility because you voted not to do that serious, righteously and prudently reasonable background check when uncompromised credibility should have been the highest priority in your selection of police chief.

A police chief with no credibility IS a stick of dynamite.

Lives have been tumbled upside down, longstanding reputations and careers have been carelessly tarnished. I took such strong issue with being misrepresented to the public as so many “bad apples” because I have seen a real representative of law enforcement laid out in unethical treatment at the hands of the real bad apple.

All because you “refused to subject him to a background check.”
We deserve those answers and not in so much political round-about talk that you try to talk us right out of knowing what you really did, how you really did it and why you really did it.

The arrows are coming your way because your actions have been suspect and we need answers.

There are still arrows in my quiver I have not taken out. They still need a little encouragement.

Good Will wrote:

Rather, I think it is time to ask direct questions and hope for direct answers.

I’m looking for the direct questions and I don’t see any, although I’ll repeat myself in making a few comments.

Those officers were concerned about information gathered in a quick internet search of this candidate, and that’s all it took, one quick Google, to produce enough brow-raising elements of controversy to raise more than one red flag. In fact, they wanted you to slow down, to hold off on any offer until a complete and thorough background check could be performed—which, again, Nate Ford offered to do.

Comments were made about a situation we already knew about. What more was there to investigate? If you think people of Metzger’s level (or any high ranking public official) doesn’t have issues in the past or recent past because of POLITICS … that’s just not reality. yes, Ford offered to do a background check. But did he really think one needed to be done? No, because he understood as did we how politics and the media plays in to stuff like this.

Reality is that a few police officers came to us wanting to control the hiring of a new police chief just like they have controlled and manipulated the separation from service and hiring of numerous past police chiefs resulting in 6 chiefs in 10 years.

… irresponsibly decide to simply not do a serious background check? To just take him at his word?

As I said, a background check was done on him. If someone wants to come to us with something that we didn’t know about that negatively affects his performance or negatively reflects on the township, give me that. But that’s not what we’re talking about, we’re talking about a situation that we knew about.

And I have to add, the church situation that MT mentioned in #3? Give me a break; he was doing his job - enforcing the law. It was the decision of the trustees (or whoever the elected officials are in Michigan townships) to go after the issue with the church; Metzger was just enforcing the court order. That’s not a power trip, that’s doing his job.

Lives have been tumbled upside down, longstanding reputations and careers have been carelessly tarnished. …
There are still arrows in my quiver I have not taken out. They still need a little encouragement.

You’ve been threatening these other arrows for a while now; if you have something make it public. As I said, our officers have the ability to keep personnel issues private. But if someone wants to make this stuff public, I have no problem responding to it with all of the information available.

From Dee Dee Liedel: Reality is that a few police officers came to us wanting to control the hiring of a new police chief just like they have controlled and manipulated the separation from service and hiring of numerous past police chiefs resulting in 6 chiefs in 10 years.

Ok, I'm curious. The turnover for Chief of Police in Sylvania Township is incredible. Who were the other chiefs, and why did they leave? Also, have any of these chiefs been promoted from within the PD rather than hired from outside?

From Dee Dee Liedel: If you think people of Metzger’s level (or any high ranking public official) doesn’t have issues in the past or recent past because of POLITICS … that’s just not reality.

How about the city of Sylvania's Mayor, Craig Stough? Where would I go to find some dirt in his back yard? Ditto with Sylvania's city council.

From Good Will: There are still arrows in my quiver I have not taken out. They still need a little encouragement.

Consider yourself encouraged. Let's hear it.

While I'm in twenty questions mode, I note that the political affiliations of the city of Sylvania's city council members are not published on the city web site. Does anyone know which party the council members and mayor belong to?

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

Who were the other chiefs, and why did they leave?

Since I wasn't at the township during that time, I can't name everyone but I believe there was Boehme (father of our current Dept. Chief; I think the high turnover started after he left); Seeley (no idea why he left); Copeland (terminated; lawsuit ensued and we settled); and Valvano (retired at the beginning of 2006). Valvano was there for 2-3 years; Copeland before him but I don't know for how long. I don't know who the other 2 were, when they served or why they left. The only one I can say was definitely hired from outside was Valvano; I don't know about the others.

If you want to dig up dirt on Sylvania city officials, I'll leave that to you. If you think some of them haven't made unpopular decisions, just think back to the ... shoot, I forgot the name of the house that they tried to take via eminent domain action against the Catholic Church.

Political affiliation on council members: technically, the local races are non-partisan (meaning our political affiliation is not listed on the ballot, and primaries are not based on party designation but on the number of people running).

Lathrop House

Speaking of one above-mentioned former Chief Wayne Seeley, why was he negated right off the top as a viable candidate in your search for chief?

He had a known track record with the department. He was well-liked. There were no union grievances during the time he served as chief. Collective bargaining agreements, union contracts were settled easily and quickly. The township was not caught up in arbitration legalities, one after the other the way they are now.

Additionally, the township was not throwing exuberant amounts of money into legal fees. It would seem this township administration felt it needed to pay buku bucks per hour to a huge outside law firm to re-write an entire contract.

Why is life that hard? Why did you have to use taxpayer money to go to that extent. Are your officers really so selfish in their demands that you needed to re-write the whole thing? Whose idea was that? Is their even a signed contract to date?

Former Chief Wayne Seeley retired, yes. However, he desired the opportunity to come back and serve the township once again, and he was surely not the gamble of Chief Metzger; in fact, he was much more tried and true - so why not, at least, give him an interview, allowing for input by the men and women who worked with him in the past.

Why was he written off sleight of hand?
Did you think him too union friendly?

You mention the PAR group as if they are such a very business-worthy way to locate quality candidates for the next Sylvania Township police chief.

PAR Groups (headhunters) are a dime-a-dozen.

You paid them how much? ($25,000) They gave you how many viable candidates? (5) How many did you toss out right off the top of your own accord, without any of the officers sitting in on those interviews? (3)

So - right off the top (3) of them didn’t even have the quality stuff to be contenders.

So now, essentially the PAR Group has provided you (2) candidates who actually speak well, interview well, and look good on paper.

Thanks, PAR group.

Then, as it turns out, (1) of those final (2) has been out of work for a while - so Red Flag! The other (1) candidate is presently riding a probationary fence in Huron Township, but he can explain that and, apparently, did to your satisfaction, although the officers who were concerned about that were not privy to that explanation.

So, the PAR group really only gave you (1) somewhat viable candidate, only 1 candidate for that $25,000 price tag.

For that much money, could you not have gone back and asked for 5 more since 4 were “not so good”, and the one left had a background in question?

Maybe for that amount of money there was some kind of guarantee?

Perhaps, they could send you 5 more?

So now the (1) the trustees are pushing in haste to drive home a new chief of police with a questionable background with, at least, a beginning understanding that there might be more to discover, more even beyond Huron Township. Adrian maybe?

The officers, you say, were trying to control the choosing of their chief. Did you ever think they had a reasonable vested interest in that? After all – they are the ones who have to work directly under him. Is it so unusual that their concern was more about doing their job, watching out for their fellow officers’ interests?

Honestly, truth in fact, they do have interests at stake. Although, it would seem you have written them off to selfish and bad apples and not worthy of even being a part of your police department any longer. It could be suggested that some are actually actively aiding and abedding their exits.

Selfish police officers? (I guess they were selfish when they ran into a trade center once upon a time). You do not even know the half of what these officers have seen and done in their lifetimes. Things that you will never have to do in your lifetime.

Therefore, I will never really quite know how that plays out – the definition of a “selfish” police officer. He wants a little more money than $55,000 a year. He wants to keep his health care costs down for his family OR, at least, if his premiums are being raised, he wants his income to help compensate for that loss OR he wants to make sure there is enough manpower on the road to maintain his safety as well as the community's because law enforcement is unpredictable. (On a "slow" Monday morning you might be gunned down by an unpredictable teenager with a gun and no conscience.)

Are those things they are asking for really so out of order?

YET - you can pat yourselves on the back and give every household back $45 in tax rebate as you blow off police officers as "selfish."

Therefore, yes, after all was said and done, they did care about your pick; it was important to get it right; it is their lives, their families, their job satisfaction, and their hard-earned careers that will be affected by an impulsive pick.

They had gone through a lot of chiefs – time taken in this chief’s selection would appear to have been the respectful thing to do.


I am sorry, but you act like these officers are trying to pull a fast one on you but, rather instead, it was you pulling the fast one on them. They canvassed door-to-door for you in good faith. Your promise to them in their efforts to your campaigns was that you would watch out for their rights.

Did you suddenly find them no longer promise-worthy once your got elected?

Didn’t they deserve promises kept?

It starts to look very much like you had decided union was a dirty word – not a part of your political beliefs – and that you were going to put the full, high, hard one to these officers.

It looks like, in truth, you did not care at all about the officers of Sylvania Township. And, for all appearances to date, from this window on the world, it looks like you still don't.

After an exhausting amount of research, I discovered that the comment about 'a few bad apples' was made by Pam Hanley. Carol Contrada agreed with Pam.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

Thanks MadJack - that is pretty much what I expected. Thank you for putting yourself out to do the research, exhausting as it was. Support from the community is always appreciated.

I believe elected officials should have no responsibility when it comes to choosing who will lead the police department. A police Chief should never be a puppet for a politician. Politicians are transient and can do a lot of damage during their temporary stay in their elected position. Most Township officials and Mayors do not know the difference between a civil or a criminal case. Police Officers risk their lives daily and need a Chief who is not working to make 3 township officials happy, but who is working to keep the police force and the citizens of the community safe.

Concerned Citizen Says:
November 22nd, 2008 at 10:15 pm
To kateb:

You got that right. It’s screwed up. And it’s the taxpayer and the community that is being screwed along with the police department.

The amount of money the trustees have spent over the last year in grievance procedures, arbitration hearings, pending Unfair Labor Practice hearings and pending trials in Columbus, Ohio, not to mention the hourly lawyer rate spent on the current labor contract which has taken over 12 months to settle and still not signed is ridiculous and irresponsible. The township trustees have hired a law firm out of Cleveland, Ohio - Johnson & Schmidt to represent Sylvania Township and Chief Metzger at every one of these issues, at heaven knows the $$$$ hourly rate.

You can believe it adds up to thousands and thousands of dollars of taxpayer money spent on political foolishness. Selfish police department or selfish politicians??

For any taxpayer who cares - this is all public record. You can see for yourselves how they are really wasting your money.

Ask Dee Liedel, Carol Contrada, or Pam Hanley how much all of this has cost. Will you get a straight answer? No probably more of the same “LONGGGGGGGG explanation.”

As a concerned citizen, I say taxpayers wise up — demand full disclosure of ALL LEGAL FEES.

**which was in reply to kateb's comment:

# 14 kateb Says:
November 22nd, 2008 at 9:11 pm
There’s no way to spin this that this was a good choice. You just can’t get there from here.

The Trustees screwed up. Long and short of it - instead of addressing the situation and rectifying it - we’re now seeing the LONGGGGGGGGGGGGG explanation of why it isn’t actually a screw up.

Yeah. It’s a screw up. You can put interviews, you can put all kinds of lipstick on this thing - it’s really a screw up. If you’d have just spent 25 seconds googling this guy - this dialogue wouldn’t be happening. And fyi - alot of us have a hard time with the idea of cops getting their chops busted by a guy with an ego problem. The job they do demands more respect than getting fussed at over the length of a mustache. He’s done this everywhere he’s been. YOU MADE A MISTAKE.

Just fix it and move on. It’s what the rest of us do when we drop the ball.

The voice of sanity: Just fix it and move on.

When you hire a new employee the next six months amount to an experiment. We all hope the experiment is a success, but that's not always the case. When the experiment fails it is not necessarily anyone's fault. For what ever reason, the new employee isn't working out, and the only thing to do is fire the employee and find a replacement instead of wasting time trying to affix blame or deny that a problem exists.

And, by the way, the entire fiasco about the length of an officer's mustache is ridiculous.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

Mad Jack said: "The voice of sanity: Just fix it and move on."


Sad thing is this employee has been here longer than 6 months. It has now been July 2006. He has been given 2 raises and a salary that competes easily with Chief Navarre of TPD - a much larger municipality with larger crime rate. He also was conveniently signed to a 3-year contract this past July.

I believe he was told to hold off with the department cleanup and dissemination until he had been 8 months into his reign. Go easy, Trigger.

He was initially and always a problem due to his narcissistic airs, but about a year into his reign, he began to wreck holy havoc, with full santioning of the 3 women.

It took 2-1/2 years in Adrian PD. It took 6 years in Huron Township. Eventually, he will be caught up with, but he will have destroyed a lot of lives and a lot of careers in the meantime. I, myself, do not wish to see that happen.

I think STPD actually caught onto his modus operandi more quickly than Adrian or Huron Township - it's just that those departments had the backing of their administrations; this one does not. (*Obviously, the officers caught onto that before he was even hired.)

This administration, however, does not care how many lives he hurts. Sylvania Township has no policies and procedures, no sytems in place to guard against absolute power, no checks and balance to one another, the chief unto the administration, the administration unto the chief; they are all in the same political bed.

Therefore, that is a question to preserve everyone's sanity:

Where is the policy that would keep the 2 entities separate without subjecting employees to extreme unfairness? To treatment and/or maltreatment based on conspired political agendas?

Does the township have a policy and procedure in place whereby employees may report ethics violations without fear of retribution or retaliation? If so, whom are they supposed to go to? Who are they supposed to trust? Who and where is that unbiased person?

WHERE IS THAT VOICE OF SANITY in all this mess????

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.