Comments:

Flat Nested Threaded Embedded

Oldest First Newest First

Author	Thread:
gma_gee03	February 2007 Board Meeting - DPM Proposal Accepted Posted: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 7:49 AM With lots on Rice Lake going for $95,000 a lot they should get a good price for the land. Lets hope they get it               gee
Lynn Torkelson	February 2007 Board Meeting - DPM Proposal Accepted Posted: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 11:04 AM Gee,   Yes, I've heard that the parcel is beautiful.   Brian commented on the township's good fortune in obtaining the Rice Lake parcel, and he is surely right about that. But we were due for some good luck, I must say!   The important thing is to take advantage of good fortune when it arises, and the board is doing so. Having this source of money available now is truly wonderful news for the township!   The interest-free loan for seven years from DPM is a very good deal too.   Lynn Torkelson
snowbird	February 2007 Board Meeting - DPM Proposal Accepted Posted: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 6:08 PM the lights are on, the cockroaches hide... wait until the lights are off again... at the meeting some big fat idiot said Andy was to blame for telling the state about the TLT crooks... guess its okay to be a crook but not to tell the cops... interest is built in to the $195 grand, its not free... thats why its $65 not $52 each... keep your hands on your wallets...
tiz	February 2007 Board Meeting - DPM Proposal Accepted Posted: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 10:15 PM Hey Bird right on! The guy that showed his intellectual grasp of what occurred in the Twp over the past three years was a member of DPM - Peterson - who is going to gain 1/3 of the 195K. I guess he's very unhappy that the state moved in. These guys aren't even good actors. I told you there would only be one bid didn't I?
snowbird	February 2007 Board Meeting - DPM Proposal Accepted Posted: Thursday, February 22, 2007 9:34 AM so that MORON is one of our new assessors... peterson... should have figured... god help us all... one bid... no ads in marquette and detroit... peterson might just as well wear a tshirt saying we're crooks and we're going to screw you and you can't do anything about it... couldn't even hold his tongue until after he got the big $$$... disgusting smirk on his face the whole time he talked, now i know why... yeah sure TLT needs to pull together, the crooks are ALL the way back... trust and pride i don't think so...
Lynn Torkelson	February 2007 Board Meeting - DPM Proposal Accepted Posted: Friday, February 23, 2007 12:59 AM The Daily Mining Gazette published its article on the township board meeting right away this time: Torch Lake Township hires firm for reappraisal. (Allen take note.) Board Meeting Comments Here is my 2 cents regarding the comments made at the board meeting by the man now identified as Dave Peterson of DPM Assessing: At the meeting, it didn't occur to me that the speaker was anyone but a regular citizen using his free speech rights as an American to blow off steam about events long past. I should have realized that he was one of the assessors because he sat next to Matt Arko. To set the record straight, there was nothing said about "crooks." But the speaker did indeed take Andrew Murtagh to task for calling the state's attention to the assessment problems in Torch Lake Township. Mr. Murtagh then explained calmly that he had met with Don Bode two days after taking over as Supervisor. Mr. Bode had told him at that time that the township needed a complete reassessment. Therefore the state was already well aware of the township's assessment problems. On February 10, Mr. Murtagh provided additional background on the history of this issue via his letter to the editor in the Daily Mining Gazette: Reflections. It was apparent at the February board meeting that Mr. Murtagh did not know the speaker as Dave Peterson either, addressing him as "whoever you are." I mistakenly assumed that Mr. Murtagh would know anyone in a responsible position. Assessors have free speech rights too, but I am very disappointed to learn that one of our assessors holds such irresponsible opinions. From my perspective, the only acceptable position for an assessor to take is: The problem is the township's non-compliance with the state tax laws. As an assessor, I am totally committed to fixing that problem. End of story. I confess that learning that one of our assessors sees things differently reduces my optimism considerably. Lynn Torkelson
cooker	February 2007 Board Meeting - DPM Proposal Accepted Posted: Friday, February 23, 2007 7:13 PM Thanks for sharing all that with us, Lynn.  I appreciate your being so honest and forthright in admitting that maybe you didn't have the right take on all of it.  I may not always agree with Mr. Murtagh or his approach but I have always found him to be honest and knowledgeable.  When he refers to the "Red Book,"  you can be sure he's right.  This was true long before he was on the board.  We should be so lucky as to have a board member that well informed now.  They could all take lesson from him.   Let's hope our supervisor doesn't think he can handle the contract with the trio on his own.  If indeed he said that he doesn't need a lawyer to help him read a contract, I hope he has rethought that position.  He's committing us, the taxpayers, to more than pocket change and he'd better get it right and not listen to his buddies for advice.  Downstate may have the last say but Brian should represent us in the best light possible.  It's time for him to step up to the plate and act like a leader instead of blaming others.  If he's going to do that, he has to go back to the reign of Mrs. Rheault and what's the point in that?  He, and his board, certainly haven't accomplished much.
Lynn Torkelson	Help Wanted Posted: Saturday, February 24, 2007 10:30 AM cooker, Please excuse my ignorance (once again) but I don't know what the "Red Book" is. For those of us whose reading is pretty much confined to computer books and the Bible, would you clarify? Also, the more I think about the comments of Dave Peterson, the assessor, the more worried I get. It's hard for me to trust a man who believes that the exposure of wrong-doing is a greater problem than the wrong-doing itself. Finally, Mr. Murtagh pointed out that the board had authorized advertising in both the Marquette Mining Journal and the Detroit Free Press. That was not done. What I'm wondering about now is just what it means when the board votes to authorize something. Is that just a general statement that something might be done? As a business person I expect things to be done according to plan, but I don't know if that applies to government or not. I'm still trying to get my head around this stuff, and at my age (and thick skull) it's some slow going. Lynn Torkelson
cooker	Help Wanted Posted: Saturday, February 24, 2007 12:44 PM Lynn, The "Red Book" might be called the bible of township rules and regs.  I became aware of it during the tenure of the last board.  It was referred to often and solved a multitude of questions. I share your concern over a supervisor who can do as he sees fit and not as the board voted.  It seems to me that if advertising in Mqt. and Detroit was too expensive, Brian should have said so at the meeting.  Why did he let the motion come to a vote?  This is something that a legal mind can explain, I'm sure.  Where is JRussell when we need him?  Advertising locally (only) just does not make sense.  This is a big project and involves a large amount of money.  There's no reason to think that someone outside the Copper Country couldn't see that it would be worth his/her time to come up and do the job even if he/she didn't live here.  I can see many, many advantages to having someone from outside our area handle the matter.  We have seen far too much insider-type dealings in our area and need to free ourselves from that.  One of the big draw backs, as I see it, is that the "powers that be" are the ones who ousted the last board and worked tooth and nail to elect this one.  The current board, no doubt, feels an obligation to that group of, so-called, concerned citizens.  Anyone who watched the whole process knows how Brian allowed himself to be manipulated.  Sad to see and say.   We need to keep a careful watch and not be fooled by rhetoric.  Lou had nice words, let's see what he does about them.  Unfortunately, he is related to some of the powers and involved in the illegal homesteading they have.  That's fact that can be checked at the court house.
downrighthonest	Help Wanted Posted: Saturday, February 24, 2007 1:10 PM It is nice to know that people did hear what was going on at the meeting. Your questions are quite valid. Cadwell had no right to override the vote by the Board to advertise downstate.  The fact that the members did not consider the cost is irrelevent.  When we are considering a $200,000 contract, the prices of the ads are insignificant, and Cadwells move was irresponsible and dictatorial.   The Freedom of Information act was badly trampled on when Jukuri pointed out the audience had no copy of the contract under discussion at hand and Cadwell replied "You'll get a copy after it has been approved & signed." So much for the Open Meetings Act.
birds eye	Help Wanted Posted: Sunday, February 25, 2007 4:40 PM Lynn, I knew you'd finally get it, although your post this month had me a bit worried!  Don't feel bad, it's easy to do but as time goes on, you will see that this group is very calculated in what they say and do. Unfortunately, this has been going on for quite a while and they continue to fool a lot of people. The women (and Mr. Murtaugh) on the previous Board saw right through it. I miss their wisdom and their audacity to stand up for the state laws.  May I remind you that the majority of the present Board and their friends in the gallery worked very hard to get rid of these women……is it starting to make sense why they wanted them gone? I think most of us are brought up to see the good in people and to believe they are trustworthy, so it's understandable why you didn't initially catch on. Sad, but this is the way it's been for years. I think some reading these posts think many of us are just negative, angry people (that we need to “smell the fresh air” and “pick blueberries”), but we've been around long enough to know what's behind their words and actions. We’ve seen too much over the years. The more eyes that are opened, the better off the Twp. will be, the better off the majority of us will be. I'm glad that you caught on, Lynn! And I think you probably now know that the interest-free loan isn’t really interest free at all, it just sounded good! When a dollar sign is attached to something in business or politics, nothing is ever free! I for one am very thankful to the person that did talk to the people downstate. I don’t care who it was. But I can’t figure out why our assessor, or for that matter why any assessor would find it wrong for someone to make that call. Fill me in if anyone knows what’s behind this man’s comments.
Lynn Torkelson	Help Wanted Posted: Monday, February 26, 2007 2:22 PM cooker, birds eye, and downrighthonest, Although I find the assessor's inappropriate comments disturbing (to say the least), I can't in good conscience conclude that anyone now on the board approves of concealing dishonesty. I've attended board meetings for over a year now and have never heard a board member say anything of that sort. In retrospect, the board members should have repudiated Mr. Peterson's comments on the spot, but it's not uncommon for honest people to be shocked into silence in such situations. On the matter of the board's failure to advertise in the Marquette Mining Journal and the Detroit Free Press, I don't want to jump to a hasty conclusion either. If I assign someone a business task, I definitely expect that person to check back with me first before spending an unexpectedly large amount of money. Brian Cadwell gave the high expense as the reason for not placing those ads, so it seems reasonable to suppose that those newspapers planned to bill the township a much higher amount than the board had expected. Considering that the township got only one bid -- from the firm of which Mr. Peterson is a part -- the failure to advertise in more newspapers turned out badly, I do agree. In the future I suspect that the board will set some upper spending limit in such motions to clarify the conditions under which an authorization applies. Nevertheless, without such a limit in place, it does not seem to me that the township should be required to place an ad, even if authorized, if the cost turns out to be exorbitant. Otherwise, wouldn't the township be forced into paying large, unbudgeted amounts? Lynn Torkelson
cooker	Help Wanted Posted: Monday, February 26, 2007 3:08 PM Lynn, Your view is very kind and gracious but I didn't hear Mr. Cadwell give any quotes from the Detroit or Mqt papers, did you?  Are you sure he really contacted them directly?  I agree with you that a more correct business approach would have been for the board to set some spending limits for him.  His making this decision unilaterally doesn't sound like a very democratic way to function.  However, these people on the board (ALL of them)  are very inexperienced. Do you suggeset that we wait for them to learn how things SHOULD be done?  Do you think they would accept suggestions during the meetings if people in the audience have more knowledge and would like to offer some of it?  I haven't gotten the idea that they are open to audience ideas except from a chosen few.  You know, they might listen to you!  Go for it.
Lynn Torkelson	Help Wanted Posted: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 9:44 AM cooker, I drew the unwelcome conclusion that our township's taxpayers have been cheated for many years by a corrupt government because that was the only possible explanation I saw for what was in the public tax records. I tried hard to think of other possible explanations. In contrast, I do see another possible explanation for the township board's failure to place the ads it authorized during the January board meeting. Therefore I can't fairly conclude that the board failed to place the ads in order to ensure that the only bid received would come from DPM, however troubling that result might be after Mr. Peterson's public comments. At the February meeting, the subject of the board's failure to place the ads arose when Andrew Murtagh noted that the Bills to Pay list did not include bills from the Marquette Mining Journal nor the Detroit Free Press. Brian Cadwell told Mr. Murtagh that he had not placed the ads. Mr. Murtagh asked for the reason and Brian cited the expense. No quotes were requested and none were given. Mr. Murtagh then said that it is the Clerk's responsiblity to place the ads (I'm guessing that is one of those "Red Book" rules), and Brian confirmed that no one had placed the ads. Lynn Torkelson
smithmi	Help Wanted Posted: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 10:17 AM If there is concern that the bidding process was not correctly handled, you may want to advise the State Tax Commission with this concern.  Their approval is not a rubber stamp.  If no one alerts them to your thoughts, then you get what you have.
tiz	Help Wanted Posted: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 1:05 PM I told anyone that would read, that the odor coming from the preliminary rounds w Cadwell & personal friend arco was clear to see:                     1. There would only be one bid                          2. That bidder would be Arco.   Does anyone, even Lynn actually believe this just happened?   And there were no copies of the proposal available to the public to review---WHY?  I'd hate to see what's on thet paper. What are cadwell & arco hiding from the people who have to pay the bill?  Why do they operate outside the law?
gma_gee03	Help Wanted Posted: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 1:45 PM Why worry about the cost of adds. We have money to throw away as you can see by what they are spending now. I just hope the Rice Lake lot is advertised But it maybe sold by the next meeting and never know who bought it Just like the last sale            gee
Lynn Torkelson	Red Book Posted: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 5:33 PM I have been told privately that there is no "Red Book" rule identifying the Township Clerk as being responsible for placing any newspaper ads other than the required election ads. Now that I know about the "Red Book," I wonder if anyone here knows if copies are available to the public and, if so, how one obtains a copy. Lynn Torkelson
ourway	February 2007 Board Meeting - DPM Proposal Accepted Posted: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 7:02 PM Facts 1. No one on the new board has any agenda except for doing a good job. 2. The losers of the recall have a vendetta against the new board. 3. No one had to lie to get people to sign the recall petition, people came outside looking for a chance to sign it. 4. After the recall there was 6 weeks of work left by the old clerk and treasurer. 5. No one ran against the new board last election. 6. Andy Murtagh couldn't be elected dogcatcher, he wrote that letter to the state. 7. Torch Lake taxes aren't in worse shape than any other township around here. 8. When I bought my house over 30 years ago, I paid high property taxes and my neighbors paid a fraction of what I paid. 9. I haven't moved and now my taxes are low, so this is nothing new. 10. Reassessment won't change anybody's taxes until property is sold. 11. Newspapers won't print anonymous lies and web sites shouldn't either.
gma_gee03	February 2007 Board Meeting - DPM Proposal Accepted Posted: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 11:24 PM here is a site for the red book for meeting www.michigantownships.org/books.asp hope you find it there
JRussell	February 2007 Board Meeting - DPM Proposal Accepted Posted: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 7:02 AM Facts 1.     No one on the new board has any agenda except for doing a good job.   One must assume you are a Board member to make such a statement.  Does “doing a good job” include calling for the firing of the Assessor with no concrete reason other than “we keep hearing things”?  Does “doing a good job” include not addressing the most critical problems such as the tax errors?   This Board has made many decisions with no research or forethought as to their impact. Example:  If the motion to fire the assessor, as initiated by Denise Lepisto, had carried, the Township would have been inoperable according to MTA guidelines.  One would think that a responsible Board member would have researched this and would have a plan in place PRIOR to making such a motion. 2. The losers of the recall have a vendetta against the new board.   The former Board members could be very vocal about some of the “less than stellar” decisions of the current Board, such as executing a significant contract without legal advice or review, but they haven’t been. 3. No one had to lie to get people to sign the recall petition, people came outside looking for a chance to sign it.   The Recall effort was largely conducted by a group calling themselves “Concerned Citizens and Taxpayers”.  However, following the Recall this group made no efforts to address any tax issues. 4. After the recall there was 6 weeks of work left by the old clerk and treasurer.   Not at all surprising, given the manner in which they were treated. This fact, no doubt, was compounded by the fact that the new Board was completely green and had no idea where to begin.   Mr Botto was a great asset to a completely inexperienced Board. He assisted in many ways to get them up and running and, in return, Ms. Lepisto moved to have him fired.   Did they expect that the Recalled Board members would train new Board members? 5. No one ran against the new board last election.   Not surprising, and not reflective of the fact that they’ve done a bang-up job (see comments to #1 and #6). 6. Andy Murtagh couldn't be elected dogcatcher, he wrote that letter to the state.   Mr. Murtaugh is not the only person in contact with the State.  This comment is the most disturbing of all of “Our Way’s” “Facts”. One must assume you are a current Board member, or a taxpayer. It is irrelevant HOW the State got involved.  The fact is the tax rolls are in such disrepair that the State MUST get involved.  This argument is the equivalent of complaining about the person who reported a bank robbery rather than worrying about the fact that the bank has been robbed.   It is VERY disturbing that this may be the attitude of some of our current Board members. 7. Torch Lake taxes aren't in worse shape than any other township around here.   Again, one can only HOPE, that this is not the attitude of the current Board. It is incredible that anyone would put this comment in writing and is further evidence of the need for State intervention and oversight.   A bit of editorial comment......I am astonished that anyone could possibly write "TLT taxes aren't in worse shape than any other township." 8. When I bought my house over 30 years ago, I paid high property taxes and my neighbors paid a fraction of what I paid.   This will always be true, to some degree, due to a number of variables.  It does not, however, distract from the need of accurate tax assessments. Was the point of this comment that we do not NEED accurate assessments? 9. I haven't moved and now my taxes are low, so this is nothing new.   I’m not sure what the point of this comment is. 10. Reassessment won't change anybody's taxes until property is sold.   What is the point of this comment? That we should let a 25 year history of incomplete tax cards and erroneous assessments continue?  Again, I hope that you are not a Board member and I do hope that this is not the attitude of the current Board. 11. Newspapers won't print anonymous lies and web sites shouldn't either   Many posts herein are opinions and, yes, many papers DO print anonymous opinions.  There are also many facts contained within this thread and these have been pointed out, along with methods to verify them. By and large, most posters on this site clearly state opinions as such and separate facts (which can be verified) from thoughts or impressions.    The Web is filled with erroneous information, one simply has to have the intelligence to recognize facts from fiction, and opinions from facts, which would include the post of “Our Way.”   All of this can be summed up by the fact that the current Board hired a new Assessor who stood up at a public meeting and accused another of contacting the State regarding the status of our Tax Rolls.  The irony of this is not lost……and his comment is the strongest example of why we do need State oversight.   I do not feel the current Board is inherently bad. They, however, are very inexperienced and do not show foresight nor do demonstrate preparation prior to making decisions and taking action.   What can be said about the Recalled Board is that they did have the forethought and intelligence to utilize resources such as the MTA, Township attorney etc. and, more importantly, they followed the advice they were given. In my opinion, had they remained in office and followed the course they were on, with the assistance of Mr. Botto, the State would not have had to step in.   The post of "Our Way" is very much likened to the comment at the last meeting regarding WHO contacted the State ... both of which demonstrate the need for State oversight.   It simply leaves many of us shaking our heads because it is simply too unbelievable.
Lynn Torkelson	Red Book Posted: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 11:11 AM gee, Thanks for the information! Folks interested in township government can find a lot of valuable information here: MTA Store. Anyone can order the "Red Book" for $35 + $2.10 tax. In fact, the MTA web site offers many free documents as well. Check out this great page: Resource Toolkits. Lynn Torkelson
gma_gee03	Red Book Posted: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 10:05 PM my buddy google has taught me a lot on here that is where i found that sight for the little red book also typed in copper country ice rinks i could not beleive all that were up her years ago was glad i could help . keep up the good work on here i have heard people complaining about some one squealing to the state why is bringing something out into the open squealing          gee
tiz	Red Book Posted: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 10:44 PM cant figure out how a guy who was given a contract in november for $38,000 to maintain the assessing records, then gets a gift of $195,000 to rework the same records over again has the guts to stand up & publicly accuse a person of calling in the state when the township had  no tax maps, & 70% of the township records from the last 24 years are missing . These are the             people who are going to "straighten out our township?  Oh man - we are some confused.
gma_gee03	RICE LAKE PROPERTY Posted: Thursday, March 01, 2007 1:36 AM wonder if we will ever know who buys the rice lake property could be sold already 100 ft wide lots out there are 95,000 just how much land does torch lake own does any one know           gee
cooker	February 2007 Board Meeting - DPM Proposal Accepted Posted: Thursday, March 01, 2007 9:04 AM Ourway,   I have a question about #7 in your Feb. 27th posting.  What research have you done to support the statement that "Torch Lake taxes aren't in worse shape than any other township around here."  That's quite an indictment and must be substantiated.  I wouldn't know how to go about getting those facts.  How did you and how long did it take you to do it?  That must have been a real undertaking.  Please share your sources with us.  After your accusations of others, I'm sure you wouldn't post something recklessly without proof.  Right?
birds eye	February 2007 Board Meeting - DPM Proposal Accepted Posted: Thursday, March 01, 2007 11:23 AM   "After your accusations of others, I'm sure you wouldn't post something recklessly without proof."   Cooker, that was tongue in cheek, right??? Or is one eye closing?   That whole post by Our Way was so ridiculous it made me laugh. It's also closely similar in content and approach to a failed campaign for a trustee position a few years ago. A campaign that was built on unsubstantiated and untrue (as in lies) accusations.  And also is very similar to an ad taken out by that Concerned Citizens Group during the recall.   I'd say "our way" (and they really are use to having it their way) is about to succumb to the "States Way" and it's about time.   On another note, if you give it some thought, this Concerned Citizens group (a group that the majority of our Board actively supported) has done very little to improve our Twp., and didn't address any of the serious issues until forced to act. In fact if you look at it, what this "concerned" group has done has cost the Twp. thousands of dollars more than it would have cost to get us up to State standards. Had this group not dragged their feet, wavered in the wind, wandered aimlessly around an environment they had no idea how to handle, we'd have gotten the reassessments done for thousands less and the State wouldn't be breathing down our necks.  I would imagine this is an embarrassment to our Board members. It really should be. We are further away from being a well run Twp. than we were a few years ago, before they ran out of town the Board members that cared and knew how to get answers.  And you say there are no agendas. Wake up honey!   Of course this is my opinion but in my books, the $$ signs don't lie.
Wutzup	February 2007 Board Meeting - DPM Proposal Accepted Posted: Thursday, March 01, 2007 12:47 PM Fact1. At least 2 members have an agenda to just show up and vote yes on anything put in motion...................Fact2,There were definite misdoings on the recall petitions -names and addresses filled in by someone other than the signature.....Fact 3. I'd vote for Andy for dogcatcher and a lot of others would too if he chose to run for the position- I think he could be elected....... Fact4. When you bought a house 30 years ago and your taxes were higher than your neighbors, your neighbor must have explained what you had to do to lower them was suck up to Margrit Rheault and looks like you did a good job of it........Fact 10, You got one right -one out of 11, pretty good for a Tech grad.
gma_gee03	February 2007 Board Meeting - DPM Proposal Accepted Posted: Thursday, March 01, 2007 10:58 PM As the name implies, a trustee is an individual placed in a position of public trust with fiduciary responsibilities to manage the affairs of the township for the best interests of the public. The trustee has the responsibility to attend township board meetings and participate in decisions and deliberations.     Trustees should be given an opportunity to investigate and study important decisions before voting. Trustees are frequently given additional duties and responsibilities by township board action.     does this sound like the ones in torch lake township?                   gee
Wutzup	February 2007 Board Meeting - DPM Proposal Accepted Posted: Friday, March 02, 2007 7:01 AM First I apologize to Tech grads - This ourway says she went to Tech -that doesn't mean she graduated from there. Good point Gee. I've heard that after a motion is made and seconded, Fearless Fosdick says the word "discussion?" and then there is a period of silence not to exceed 5 seconds, and then the vote, which is always unanimous! Surprise, surprise, surprise.That's the depth of anyone's involvement in caring about the legitimacy, ethics, alternatives,or even good or bad sense of what they are doing.
Lynn Torkelson	Communicating Posted: Saturday, March 03, 2007 10:07 AM smithmi, You made an excellent point in your February 27 post. Last month I was surprised that the Daily Mining Gazette had not printed a story on the state's takeover of our township's tax rolls. When I called to ask the reason, I found that they simply had not been told about it. Shortly thereafter they did print that story. None of us are mind-readers, not even government officials, and we can't expect them to act on information that no one has supplied. After some reflection last month, I resolved to do a better job as a citizen in communicating. I wrote a short letter to Kelli Sobel, Executive Secretary State Tax Commission P.O. Box 30471 Lansing, Michigan 48909-7971 expressing my concerns, and received a prompt and courteous reply. Thanks also for the link you supplied last month for Collier County Florida Appraisals. As you indicated, it was very interesting to page through that web site, particularly the GIS maps. You might be interested to know that there is a company located just outside Marquette (in Rumely) that does this kind of work: PlanSight Products for Local Governments. I think Diane Zurcher said that the software purchased in October, 2005 -- the same software used by Houghton County -- has the capability to display property tax information online. I don't know how detailed that information is, nor how to access it. If anyone here has looked at Torch Lake Township tax records online, I'd appreciate your posting how to do that. Otherwise I'll ask Diane about it at the next board meeting. Lynn Torkelson
ourway	February 2007 Board Meeting - DPM Proposal Accepted Posted: Sunday, March 04, 2007 9:09 AM Facts 1. When Andy took over as super, there were NO ads, it was an inside job all the way. 2. Andy used tax money to buy his own ad, until he got caught. 3. Now Andy and crew complain about the way the new board buys ads?
downrighthonest	February 2007 Board Meeting - DPM Proposal Accepted Posted: Sunday, March 04, 2007 9:38 AM Lynn - Your well reasoned comments are like a breath of fresh air.   your post Feb 27, last para.  If you check back to the previous meeting minutes you will see that the Board voted to have the Clerk send out the specs to certain companies and to place the request for bids in certain papers.. The Clerk was assigned the reaponsibility by the Board.  I believe if you check other TWPs you will find that these are this is a function normally assigned to the Clerk. It was the vote by the Board that was overturned by Cadwell. Notice he only speaks in bland terms- too costly to advertise downstate - but he offers no substantiation for this statement   ourway- you cant seem to get it together can you.  The question was about the ads NOT placed in violation of Board approved instructions.
JRussell	February 2007 Board Meeting - DPM Proposal Accepted Posted: Sunday, March 04, 2007 10:15 AM   Ourway:   Brian Cadwell was ASKED by other Board Members to fill in as Supervisor prior to appointing Mr. Murtaugh. He declined.  Therefore there was no "inside job." Mr. Murtaugh did have valuable skills to bring to the table...and he, along with other Recalled Board members, spent a great deal of time preparing prior to voting on issues...that was very apparent.   As for your prior 11 point post, you made a claim that the Recalled Board had a "vendetta".  What is the purpose of the vendetta?  To get fair and accurate tax assessments, to ensure that the Bootjack Fire and Rescue Foundation is run IAW the law, not as a "private" organization as Mr. Sarazin once erroneously claimed it to be?   I would say there are enough of us (it really only takes one)  who will ensure that assessments are straightened out and that the Township is run correctly, even if it takes State intervention.   It's really odd, when "you folks" are faced with logic...eg accurate tax records...you retort with irrelevant, loud claims...you completely ignore the fact that, yes, we do need accurate tax assessments and, one way or another, it WILL happen.    The ONLY logical answer from you would have been "yes, we need accurate assessments, the schools need the money and it is long overdue."
Lynn Torkelson	Advertising for Bids Posted: Monday, March 05, 2007 9:42 AM downrighthonest, I didn't see anything in the minutes explicitly assigning the Clerk the responsibility for advertising the request for bids. Here is what I found under Old Business: A motion was made by Cadwell and seconded by Zurcher to advertise for reappraisal bids in the Detroit Free Press; The Marquette Mining Journal; the Daily Mining Gazette and to send a copy of the reappraisal specifications to Brook Appraisal, Landmark Appraisal, JP Company and DPM Assessing. The bids are due back to the township by February 19, 2007. Roll call: Cadwell, yes; Zurcher, yes; Lepisto, yes; Ambuehl, yes; Rovano, yes. I'm totally in the dark concerning customary and proper board procedures (and in many other areas too, as I'm sure most everyone has figured out by now), so I'm looking forward to getting my copy of the "Red Book" soon. Lynn Torkelson
smithmi	Communicating Posted: Monday, March 05, 2007 1:49 PM I've tried to look up the Torch Lake Twp assessment information without any luck.  I guess it's easier to computerize the cows production than it is to computerize the stuff in the cow barn.  I've been told there may be grant monies available to work up a computerized assessment system.  I don't have any idea how to access this money.  STC may have grants.
cooker	February 2007 Board Meeting - DPM Proposal Accepted Posted: Monday, March 05, 2007 2:04 PM It's interesting the way "My way" (or is it Ourway?) completely ignores questions addressed directly to her.  Did anyone else notice that she did not have one word to say about how she did her research on the tax situation in all the other townships around Torch Lake?  Easy for her to make wild accusations or blanket statements and then totally ignore defending or supporting her claims.  Mabye she has no data to support her wild ideas?
allen	February 2007 Board Meeting - DPM Proposal Accepted Posted: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 9:34 AM Way too much fuss about this! A guy gets sick, he gets behind on paperwork. No one knows he is sick, not even him. Now you want his head on a platter?
JRussell	February 2007 Board Meeting - DPM Proposal Accepted Posted: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 9:59 AM Allen-   I do not understand your post.   The mess of the Township tax assessments goes back 25 years, and includes many violations of Michigan State Law. It is not a matter of anybody "getting behind on paperwork"....unless you are referring to empty tax cards stored in a cow barn.   To my knowledge, and based upon what I've read here, folks are asking for correct assessments, accurate tax records and old fashioned honesty...no heads on a platter.   Should we expect less?   If you consider this to be "way too much fuss"....wait until the bill arrives for the State involvement.  Your attitude and the opinions of "ourway" perpetuate the problems and, simply stated, cost the Township more and more money.   Are you willing to pay? JRussell
Wutzup	February 2007 Board Meeting - DPM Proposal Accepted Posted: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 11:34 AM Allen- intriguing little post of yours. Whose head do we want on a platter? Who was sick and didn’t even know it? Are you talking about James Rheault? First of all the missing tax records were either not done or they were destroyed by his mother in her 20 odd years in office or they weren’t done or may have been destroyed by JR in his early (healthy) years in office. You seem suggest he tossed the tax cards when he became ill? They knew he was sick for at least a year at the end when he was fired by Ruppe -BUT still made him run again for office even while his illness was causing the decent board we used to have all sorts of problems. Toward the end of his tenure his mistakes were obvious to all-like when he made changes on the tax roll on his own and sent the changes in to the county without the board of review even seeing them.
cooker	February 2007 Board Meeting - DPM Proposal Accepted Posted: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 2:49 PM Allen, You have confused many of us by your posting.  Do you consider getting our tax records in order and illegal homesteading corrected "way too much fuss?"  I assume that the sick man you reference is Jimmie Rheault.  Where do you get the idea that anyone wants "his head on a platter?"  His situation is sad but that has nothing to do with getting our township into compliance.  What we need now is for EVERYONE to support fair and equitable assessment/taxation and correct record keeping.  Who can possibly oppose this goal?  Do you?
allen	February 2007 Board Meeting - DPM Proposal Accepted Posted: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 8:27 AM Of course I want fair taxes and good record keeping. Everyone does. Where did you come up with 25 years anyway? Kind of stretching things, don't you think? He was just a kid then, not the super. We don't even have the same tax laws as 25 years ago.
birds eye	February 2007 Board Meeting - DPM Proposal Accepted Posted: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 8:49 AM Wowaaa Allen, you are way out in left field. I reread the posts and can't see where you got the idea a head was on any platter. We've been through that conversation about Jimmy Reault long ago. Jim didn't create the problem; he inherited it from his mother (you do the math). Obviously either it was too great a situation to fix or the people that were pulling his strings didn't want him to address the gross inconsistencies and downright illegal practices that had been used for years. Jim didn't create the problem; he just made more of a mess of it. Does that mean I want his head on the platter, absolutely not. Many of us knew he was sick, obviously long before you friends and family did. All you had to do was watch his mannerisms at the meetings and listen to all the things that didn't make sense. And I have to agree with the poster that commented that even after all of this, his closest friends and family encouraged him to run once again. I just couldn't believe all of you close friends and family would actually do that to the poor guy. How could you encourage that when even you had to see him at meetings rocking back and forth with his head almost on the table, or extremely agitated and not making any sense? Sad. So who really wanted Jimmy's head on a platter? Makes one wonder.  I guess now that all of this is coming out in the wash, we know why you guys would go to any length to keep the Twp. in your hands.  So don’t point your finger at others when it comes to wanting his head on a platter. Look in the mirror, honey. You may still have a majority on the Board but the numbers that are watching and speaking up are growing.
allen	February 2007 Board Meeting - DPM Proposal Accepted Posted: Thursday, March 08, 2007 8:25 AM Crooks? 25 years? Jimmy's mother? Where do you come up with that stuff? You can say something over and over, that doesn't make it right. Type, click, and here it is. HERE but nowhere else. Think about that, I do.
cooker	February 2007 Board Meeting - DPM Proposal Accepted Posted: Thursday, March 08, 2007 9:37 AM You've got that right, Allen.  YOU type, click and there it is.  Doesn't have to have a word of truth or common sense but you put it out there for all to read.  Why don't you EVER  address the issues or comments?  Maybe because you don't have a rational explanation for any of your words?
allen	February 2007 Board Meeting - DPM Proposal Accepted Posted: Thursday, March 08, 2007 11:37 AM Well EXCUUUUSE ME for the head on the platter question. Just an exageration to fit in with the rest of the comments here. True no one said those EXACT WORDS. Okay now? Seems to me like calling people crooks means they should be punished, but I guess that's just me. Other than that I am not the one making a mountain out of a molehill. If people were breaking laws for 25 years something would have been done about it a long time ago. We know Jimmy was/is sick. I read what the state says in the DMG articles and it was nothing like what you guys say here. Who should I believe, the state and the reporters at the DMG or a bunch of anonymous comments on the internet? Hmm. Let me think. Yup, got the answer!
cooker	February 2007 Board Meeting - DPM Proposal Accepted Posted: Thursday, March 08, 2007 2:57 PM Aren't you the pot calling the kettle black?  Aren't all your comments "anonymous?"  We're to believe you?  Yup, you've got the answer.
JRussell	February 2007 Board Meeting - DPM Proposal Accepted Posted: Friday, March 09, 2007 7:15 AM Allen-   When you stated that someone got "a little behind on their paperwork", I could not figure out what you were referring to. I am more than a little surprised that you would classify Mr. Rheault's performance as "a little behind".   Because your comments are so far off base, it is clear you are trying to stir something up. There is no logic in your comments and they are very staged.   In the past 25 years, there have been 3 Assessors. The Rheaults and Mr. Botto.  The State has been threatening to step in for the past year and a half (approximately).   The incomplete tax cards and erroneous assessments came from the time period during which the Rheault's held the Assessorship. It was Mr. Rheault who assessed 450 feet of lake front property at a rate of 75 CENTS per year.  It was during both of their terms that the tax card were not completed.   Mr. Botto held the position for two years (approximately). He inherited the errors from prior Assessors as outlined in a report submited to, and accepted by, the Board.   The State would not step in if the errors were not significant and numerous.  And the State did not want to take over because of 6 months of Mr Botto (the approximate time period at which the State began discussing significant involvement in TLT tax records).     There is no need for a mud-slinging contest. It is simple. There are significant problems, or the State would not be taking over.   Assuming you own property in TLT, you, too, will pay for the omissions. Jrussell
allen	February 2007 Board Meeting - DPM Proposal Accepted Posted: Friday, March 09, 2007 9:05 AM Disagreeing with you, NOT slinging mud, I'm not the mud-slinger here. Everyone knows about the problems, they are being fixed. That's fine, no need to exagerate. Until Jimmy got sick I never heard of a TLT tax problem. When he got sick he messed things up, sad but true. What's the point of dragging his mother into it or saying they broke the law for 25 years? That's what's stirring things up. Gossip pure and simple, accusing without any proof.
JRussell	February 2007 Board Meeting - DPM Proposal Accepted Posted: Friday, March 09, 2007 9:41 AM     Alllen- Fine to disagree; however, you should be willing to back up your statements. Go look at the tax cards, and then tell me that everything was Mr. Rheault's fault. Many errors, omissions and incomplete work pre-dates Mr. Rheault and some was done during his term (the 75 cent/ year assessment was done during his term and prior to his illness).   Additionally, the tax records were stored in MRS. Rheault's cow barn.  That is a direct violation of Michigan State Law. It took the FOIA to get the records out of the cow barn.  Not only illegal, but ridiculous and I don't understand why ALL citizens didn't demand the return of the documents.   You cannot correct problems until you accurately identify them.  That is all that is being done.   Look at the tax cards, and call the State and ask what they think. Did they take over because "a guy got behind on his paperwork"?    JRussell
allen	February 2007 Board Meeting - DPM Proposal Accepted Posted: Saturday, March 10, 2007 8:23 AM Never looked at a tax card in my life, never tried to, never heard they were in the barn until the trouble with Jimmy. Maybe they were there to be handy to work on instead of to hide something wrong. I'm not a lawyer, not an officer, don't know how serious that is, but if it is and you knew about it why wait until now to bring it up? Why not call the cops at the time? If the tax cards were in the barn and no one could see them how do you KNOW the "errors, omissions and and incomplete work pre-dates Mr. Rheault?" Something is fishy with what you are saying, you have an axe to grind. That makes you exagerate. Yesterday you "quoted" me twice saying "a little behind" when you KNOW I didn't use the word "little" at all. You exagerate in plain sight, probably even more when no one can check on you.
Wutzup	February 2007 Board Meeting - DPM Proposal Accepted Posted: Saturday, March 10, 2007 12:15 PM The only thing I can figure is it's someone's high school aged son playing at sophistry. That would explain the major disconnect. I hate to think what an alternative explanation would be.
cooker	February 2007 Board Meeting - DPM Proposal Accepted Posted: Sunday, March 11, 2007 7:38 AM SOPHISTRY;  is that a nice way to say "not telling the truth?"
allen	February 2007 Board Meeting - DPM Proposal Accepted Posted: Sunday, March 11, 2007 9:57 AM Easier to sling mud than answer my questions. Guess I stepped out of line asking the questions on everyone's mind. But that tells me something too.
Lynn Torkelson	Questions Posted: Sunday, March 11, 2007 1:43 PM allen, Like you, I don't accept claims as true just because they appear on the internet (and newspapers aren't infallible either, I might add). If I consider the matter important, though, I look for other ways to verify or disprove the claims being made. Should some turn out to be true, it stands to reason that other claims from the same source are more likely to be true. That's not a certainty, but I don't know how else to operate. No one can check everything. If you consider Torch Lake property taxes important, you can (and will, I think) check the public records for yourself. I started as a skeptic, but saw for myself that claims made about those tax records were correct. Although I can't say what happened 20 years ago, the County Treasurer showed me 10-year histories of parcels I wanted to check on, so I know the problems go back at least that far. I can't say from personal knowledge who was responsible either, but who held office is a matter of public record. What I saw in the Torch Lake tax records was intentional manipulation designed to lower the taxes of some at the expense of others. That was a conclusion I was loath to draw, but I don't think any fair-minded person could examine those records and conclude otherwise. You shouldn't take my word for it, allen, but do look for yourself. Lynn Torkelson
snowbird	Questions Posted: Sunday, March 11, 2007 6:42 PM okay here is a big fat hint... use the alphabetic list... find the R's... look up Rheault... look up Ruppe... bite your tongue...
allen	Questions Posted: Monday, March 12, 2007 9:29 AM Thats your advice, take off work and look at tax cards? Easy for you I guess. My questions are still hanging. Lots of mud but no answers.
Wutzup	Questions Posted: Monday, March 12, 2007 10:07 AM Hey Allen, why don't you ask your questions again because with all your goobigook, they got lost. Just state your questions plainly please and someone will give you an answer. Of course you may not like the answer. You may ignore that your question has been answered and go into more goobligook but we can't help that. Oh and by the way, Allen- Here and only here, is accessible anywhere in the world. Think about that! I do.
Wutzup	Questions Posted: Monday, March 12, 2007 10:48 AM I have copied out every question Allen asked as follows----- No one knows he is sick, not even him. Now you want his head on a platter? ************ Where did you come up with 25 years anyway?******* Well EXCUUUUSE ME for the head on the platter question. Just an exageration to fit in with the rest of the comments here. True no one said those EXACT WORDS. Okay now?*****Kind of stretching things, don't you think? Crooks? 25 years? Jimmy's mother? Where do you come up with that stuff? ******** Who should I believe, the state and the reporters at the DMG or a bunch of anonymous comments on the internet? ***** When he got sick he messed things up, sad but true. What's the point of dragging his mother into it or saying they broke the law for 25 years? *******If the tax cards were in the barn and no one could see them how do you KNOW the "errors, omissions and and incomplete work pre-dates Mr. Rheault?" I'm not a lawyer, not an officer, don't know how serious that is, but if it is and you knew about it why wait until now to bring it up? ********Thats your advice, take off work and look at tax cards? Most of the questions have been answered by Lynn and others. What if we say 20 years instead of 25? Will that do it for you Allen? That's why his mother should be dragged into it, obviously. We didn't know about the missing tax files until the Rheaults finally lost power and even then it took a great effort to get them to give the records up.
cooker	Questions Posted: Monday, March 12, 2007 11:33 AM Allen,   You don't have to "take off work" to look at the tax records.  Do it on your lunch hour.  I did.  It worked just fine.  I became so interested that I spent several noon hours doing it but it was well worth the time.  Try it, you may learn something and directly from the source and not via "he said that she said."  I think it's called original research.
JRussell	Questions Posted: Monday, March 12, 2007 4:05 PM Lynn, Cooker, Wuzup and Snowbird:    I am glad to see posts like Allen’s latest:   Thats (sic)  your advice, take off work and look at tax cards? Easy for you I guess. My questions are still hanging. Lots of mud but no answers.   Our tax records are currently under State oversight.  We contracted a new assessing firm.  We have a new board, largely due to the efforts of “The Concerned Citizens and Taxpayers.  A grave situation, as many understand.   The State obviously feels that our tax situation is critical.  However, we have posters such as Allen, above, and “Ourway” who state that “TLT tax records aren’t worse than any other township in the area” and, on a final note, we have the new assessing team, one of whom, would stand up at a public meeting and berate a citizen for contacting the State regarding the tax records.   All of these incidents drive home the need for State oversight and highlight the criticality of the situation. The more posts we see along these lines, simply strengthens the need for a watchful eye, State intervention and the fact that the current Board isn’t capable of fixing the problems themselves as they have yet to make the taxpayers aware of how critical the situation is. That should have been their first step.   And, again, I’d ask why all citizens are not concerned that the school system is one of the areas most impacted by our tax records.   In the interim, I hope to see more posts in the same vein as “Allen” and “Ourway”. I think they should be forwarded to the State oversight team, as they are demonstrative of the attitude that got us into trouble in the first place and, though anonymous, the posts, and public comments, do show that the "we'll do it our way" attitude still exists, even with State intervention.     JRussell
allen	Questions Posted: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 8:05 AM Forgot I asked that many questions. Answer these: If keeping tax cards in the barn was illegal and you knew about it why not put a stop to it 25 YEARS AGO? If the tax cards were in the barn for 25 years HOW DO YOU KNOW they were wrong before Jimmy got sick? Everyone wants to know.
Wutzup	Questions Posted: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 9:09 AM Allen- first I want to say cooker was wrong to suggest you lie. You just don't want to see the truth before you. I answered your question already but will say again. Nobody knew about the disarray in the tax records for over 20 years because the Rheaults were in power during that time and kept them hidden (as it turned out - they were in their cow barn when they were retrieved -maybe not always there for the whole time- maybe just in the end because when the Rheaults finally lost power (because they ran James for office again even though they knew he was sick and he wasn't up to the campaign),when they lost power they didn't want to give up the books. On the other question -Lynn already answered you that in his viewing of the tax books at the State Equalization office, he could see that there had been a history of unfair taxation going back a long long time. It sounds like you mainly don't want mother Rheault to be blamed -you would like to put it all on her sons head. They should both be charged but the prosecutor wont prosecute James because he is dying so they say, and Mrs Rheault is safe because of the statute of limitations. But tho she cannot be prosecuted that does not relieve her of her guilt. Harsh but true. Can you face the truth now Allen?
JRussell	Questions Posted: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 9:09 AM   Mr. Allen- Your questions seem rhetorical. It does not appear that you are honestly seeking answers.   You are, however, providing excellent source material.   JRussell
birds eye	Questions Posted: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 1:29 PM   Allen, does it really matter who did what to which cards? I don't think so, unless you want to continue to be part of the problem instead of part of the solution. Until you and your group acknowledge that Torch Lake has major issues that need to be addressed and agree to help to that end, our Township (and it is OUR Township) will continue to be a corrupt, divided community.  Why did I say "you and your group"?  Given your comment that "we all want to know" one could assume you have pow wow's with others about Up Our Way and what should be written next.   So here are clear questions for you: Does it really matter who did what to the tax cards? Is it really important to know if it was MR or JR that did this or that to them and on what date?     If it took a concerted effort to make sure we are all paying the proper Homestead taxes………if for no other reason than the fact that our area children would be getting a better education at the Lake Linden School, don't you think it would be worth it? Even if it means being vocal to those that knowingly abuse or challenge the law?   I don't think you are as clueless as your posts indicate. You can find the answers to your own questions if you do a little fact finding. I work too; use your own time to find the answers. They are right there, you just have to look.   Maybe at one of your Pow Wow’s you guys could start looking at some positives and ways to make our community inclusive.  I do believe we can all work together for a good cause.   As in any relationship, there must be TRUST.
tiz	Questions Posted: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 4:23 PM allen when you go on your lunch hour to the Court House to find the answers to your questions, don't forget to take your baby bottle.
tiz	Advertising for Bids Posted: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 4:42 PM Lynn - re your post Mar5 and the minutes of the meeting.   Please check your personal notes on the motion made as to who was to do the advertising, and how it was to be done. I do believe they will show that it was as originally stated on this site.  Cadwell very clearly instructed the Clerk to advertise in said newspapers and to send specifications to certain companys.   As you would say, these instructions somehow got mixed in the transcription.  I would say they got mixed for a reason yet to be discerned.
allen	Questions Posted: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 8:44 AM Don't know how looking at tax cards can tell me how they got bad but guess I have to try. Taking off at lunch isn't something I can do, seriously. Wish the tax cards were online. It matters if someone messed up because of sickness or a different reason. The only "pow-wows" I have on this are my family and friends, no axe to grind at all.
cooker	Questions Posted: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 9:23 AM Looking at tax cards should answer many of your problems.  If you really can't do that and have to rely on the word of family and friends, you have a real problem.  You truly DO sound like you have an axe to grind.  How will you ever really be able to prove to yourself if the tax card mistakes were during Jimmie's reign or his mother's?  What is the main issue now is that the mistakes were made and need to be corrected and can we all get behind this effort?  We need to watch carefully that this work is done fairly and doesn't just repeat the misdeeds of the past.  We need to see fair and unbiased assessing.  Can we trust the trio to do this?  Hopefully the state will be watching closely and may well need us to help them be informed.   The former poster who told you to start with the R's has a genuine point to make.  Too bad you have no way to get to the courthouse and follow the suggestion.  You would find it most interesting. Now that our weather has improved, maybe you can discover a way to get there and look for yourself since you don't seem to trust anyone on UOW.  Maybe you could get one of those you trust (family and friends) to do it for you.
Wutzup	Questions Posted: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 9:30 AM Allen, I can see it is impossible to get from LL high school to the county court house on your lunch hour, but maybe your social studies or civics teacher could make it a field day for the whole class to go view the tax records for our unfortunate township. It would certainly be educational to all of you and then you could have interesting , informative conversations with your friends and parents and there might even be a change of the mindset in the district!
birds eye	Questions Posted: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 11:11 AM Zup, Cooker.....do you really think you need to continually tell Allen how to get to the Courthouse? Come on, you’re being played. You might as well take the person by the hand, buy them a Happy Meal and TAKE them to the Courthouse!! You’re wasting your time with this one. Where there is a will, there is a way. Even HS kids have all kinds of free time. As I have previously said, this poster isn't as clueless and naive as it sounds!!   I'm not surprised Allen didn't answer any of my questions from yesterday.  Interesting but not new to this forum! Looking back, very few relevant questions have ever been answered by the BJ posters.   Who cares if the previous assessor was ill or if Mother R. was taking care of friends and family, what’s done is done. Period. It’s not going to change a thing figuring out which one of the two is responsible for which mistakes. They both had their hands in this mess. And don’t come back and ask me how I know. Do your own homework.   Does Allen have an axe to grind, pot to stir, strings to yank, dirty diapers to change...you choose.    One thing I think we all know, the real issues at hand, the issues that really matter to the Twp. as a whole won't be addressed by this poster.
Lynn Torkelson	Advertising for Bids Posted: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 11:54 AM tiz, Sad to say, I did not make a note at the January meeting of who was supposed to place those ads, nor do I have a clear recollection. At the time it didn't occur to me that the ads might not be placed at all, so I didn't focus on that aspect. Now I wish I had! My copy of the Red Book came. It doesn't look very big, but I soon saw there's a lot of material in there. Some day I hope to have a decent grasp of it. Lynn Torkelson
birds eye	Red Book Posted: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:44 PM Lynn, the Red Book is a wealth of information and a great resource when in doubt. I applaud your genuine interest in the way our Township works and could/should conduct business. "The more we know the more we grow." And I hate to say it, but in the case of TL, the more disgusted and determined we get! I think many readers appreciate and value your approach. Keep it up. Thanks
gma_gee03	Red Book Posted: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 1:30 PM i think they also need to read Robert's Rules of Order   once a moton is made it is acted upon unless it is recinded   you just dont came back to the next meeting saying we changed our minds   ay least i dont think you can   not and run a meeting the right way          gee
allen	Questions Posted: Thursday, March 15, 2007 9:15 AM Guess if I have any axe to grind maybe its RESPECT FOR AUTHORITY, something sadly lacking these days and your posts don't help any. Jimmy was sick and thats enough said about it. No need to gossip about "crooks" in TLT. The STATE said procedures and paperwork was the problem, are they in on it too? What about the county, are they in on it? The DMG is in on it? Your exagerating undermines all authority, think about it.
cooker	Questions Posted: Thursday, March 15, 2007 10:01 AM Allen, Respect has to be earned, not claimed.  Maybe you're too young to have learned or been taught that.   Just because one is a supervisor or assessor does not mean he/she can or should command respect.
ourway	Advertising for Bids Posted: Thursday, March 15, 2007 11:26 AM Facts 1. Assessing is the super's responsibility only, always has been, ads included. 2. No one said the clerk would buy those ads, you are wrong again.
gma_gee03	Advertising for Bids Posted: Thursday, March 15, 2007 11:45 AM The supervisor is the chief assessing officer of the township, responsible for assessing property values within the township at 50 percent of its true cash value (MCL 41.61). Even if s/he is not a certified assessor, s/he is still responsible for this duty. Any other assessors required to perform the function are subordinate to the supervisor. In assessing property, the supervisor and assessing officials may use only those manuals approved by the State Tax Commission. The township board is authorized to appoint additional assessors and is required to do so if the supervisor is not certified. Such assessors still remain subordinate to the supervisor.
cooker	Advertising for Bids Posted: Thursday, March 15, 2007 2:58 PM Has anyone noticed that the supervisor (Jimmie) and the clerk (Peggy) each always had a tape recorder on the table at each and every meeting?  I always figured Peggy's minutes were so complete because she could listen to the tape after each meeting and make the minutes more accurate and inclusive.  I think Karen does the best she can but her minutes don't hold a candle to the quality of  Peggy's-----------and you can check that out very easily. If we had access to tapes (like under Jimmie's tenure) we wouldn't be wasting time on he said/she said.  We could refer to the tape and KNOW who was given the responsibility to place ads in the Gazette and the Mqt and Detroit papers.   The thought just hit me that maybe the absence of tape recordings under the Cadwell rule is by design.  Is that possible?  I think Lynn does a fantastic job of informing the citizens of the board actions but maybe HE should put a recorder on the table at each meeting.  Consider it, Lynn.
birds eye	Questions Posted: Thursday, March 15, 2007 3:35 PM Allen, Blind respect has gotten us IN this mess.
downrighthonest	Questions Posted: Thursday, March 15, 2007 11:32 PM May I suggest that we have all seen allen in action at the board meetings B.C. (before cadwell) and she is now engaged in a bit of sophistry and is enjoying pulling our chains with her convoluted rhetoric.  My suggestion to all you serious people is to ignore allens postings completely, and to get on with our order of discovery.   There is definitely something rotten in the way denmark has been over-run. The whole deal smells like fish, and looks like fish.  We can't seem to get a simple clear explanation from BC and his board. He answers questions only in monosylables.  Did anyone notice that the members of the Board did not have a copy of DPM's bid to study?  One would have thought that for such a serious matter the Clerk would have reproduced enough copies for the Board members to look at. Didn't the fact that BC denied the citizens assembled the right to see a copy of the documents raise anybody's curiosity? BC just trampled over The Open Meetings Act. Did anyone notice that not one of the three members present asked one question about the contract they subsequently approved unanimously?   Good idea for Lynn to start taping the meetings.  Unfortunately the horse may be out of the barn.   Keep plugging guys & gals.
cooker	Questions Posted: Friday, March 16, 2007 9:11 AM Some good points, Downright.  Thanks.  I disagree on one point, though.  It is not too late to start taping the meetings.  Won't help us on past issues but you have to know that there will be more issues in the future unless this board does a 180 about face.  I'm not sure they are capable of that or that they want to mend their ways. I really think they look completely satisfied with the way they are "handling" things.  Does one of them look uncomfortable with the way they are voting at the meetings?  They're in control and they are well aware of it.  The supervisor would like to give the impression that he is listening to all sides but he is well instructed before each meeting as to how things are to go.  I firmly believe this.
smithmi	Questions Posted: Friday, March 16, 2007 9:15 AM Question or just a point to think on:   If Jim R. was "Sick" and not able to function, was a guardian appointed for him anytime during his tenure as the assessor.  If yes would the guardian have also dabbled in his affairs and responsibilities as the assessor, could this invalidate the statute of limitations previously mentioned.
gma_gee03	Questions Posted: Friday, March 16, 2007 2:20 PM were they certified assessers?   and who did it?                gee
emtae	Questions Posted: Friday, March 16, 2007 4:26 PM Is this an attempt to dig up dirt on people who you handfull of fine citizens just don't like? Don't be offended it's just a question.   Seems to me, after reading way to many of these posts, that there is about a dozen of you here( on this site) that just plain hate certain family groups in TLT.   I think no matter what happens in the future, whether it's this current board being recalled, state stepping in,...etc, you will find something to harp on. It's really sad.   This is just an opinion. I only base this opinion on what I've read hear and the general tone this site and some of it's posters have. I do believe most of you have good intentions and I do agree changes are needed. On the flip side, if you want to be heard, don't constantly attack people for stating their opinion.
tiz	Questions Posted: Friday, March 16, 2007 6:11 PM Dwnrgt   Are you tellin me that those three clowns signed off on a doc they didn't even read ?>?>?>?
cooker	Questions Posted: Friday, March 16, 2007 7:24 PM I'm confused, Tiz.  Which three signed the document?  There are 5 board members.  Didn't they all take part?
Wutzup	Questions Posted: Friday, March 16, 2007 8:04 PM I don't think any of us hate any family groups as you say, but I sure as hell don't like the crap they pulled and don't want them to be able to pull any more of their crap without facing the music. No need to dig for dirt -it's right there for all to see. I think if the those responsible where made to pay, or if the present board was recalled or if the state would take over and straighten this mess out in a proper way, that this handful of fine citizens would throw a big party and live happily ever after.
trusty	Questions Posted: Friday, March 16, 2007 9:21 PM The board had copies - they get copies of everything before the meeting.  Peggy and crew did it the same way.  What they had at the meeting was not the contract - according to what the super said. It was just a proposal.  Since DPM was the only firm of 5 contacted to submit a bid, (others faxed in "thanks but no thanks letters"), I am sure a contract has been hammered out and on it's way to Lansing.  I am sure you can request copies of the SIGNED contract from the clerk under FOA.  You also can get copies of the refusals to bid too, if you are interested. The contract will include all the pertinents from the proposal.
ourway	Questions Posted: Saturday, March 17, 2007 9:19 AM Facts 1. We owe respect to the office someone holds, not the person holding it. 2. I think President Bush has a head full of rocks but I still owe him the respect of his office. 3. We owe our local officials the same respect whether we agree with them or not. 4. Allen hit the nail on the head.
Wutzup	Questions Posted: Saturday, March 17, 2007 11:04 AM ourway always speaks in fucts, so let's look at them. Has already been said respect has to be earned not automatically given. Since you bring up Bush - by trying to sieze more power to the presidency, he has done severe damage to the office especially in the rest of the world. Our local officials don't have that much scope fortunately but the damage effects us as severely on a local level. What nail do you speak of?
trusty	Questions Posted: Saturday, March 17, 2007 3:51 PM So, if the present board is doing such a terrible job, why did no one run against them in the last election.... not one position was challenged...hmmm.  Me thinks you would rather hide behind this anonymous website and spew the untruths you love to harp about, rather than trying to make TLT "a better place" for all by actually trying to help rather than hinder.  Maybe you KNOW that most level headed citizens in TLT won't buy your pile of baloney.  The current board is not made up of saints - they don't get it right all the time. None of us do.  At least they try and are willing to stick their neck out. WHY?  Certainly not for the measly check they get every month, I am sure all could get buy just fine without it.  They do it for THEIR community.  To make it better for EVERYONE.  They aren't out to see anyone belittled or demeaned by dragging them and their families through the mud at every turn. If you think you can do it better, their seats are all up for grabs Nov 2008.  Sign your name, go ahead I dare you.
Wutzup	Questions Posted: Saturday, March 17, 2007 4:24 PM Sorry trusty I gotta say it -the measly check you get each month is more than you are worth. You sit there slumped over the end of the table and you contribute nothing except your "yes" vote on every motion brought up. No discussion -just a yes vote for your in-laws. You are wrong about the level headed members of this community thinking this is baloney and you know it too now and that's why the sudden attempt to fill the site with your diatribes. Thanks for the dare. You may rue giving it.
trusty	Questions Posted: Saturday, March 17, 2007 4:59 PM So... you think I am on the board. Wrong again.  I know there is much guessing that goes on regarding who is who on this site.  If you won't reveal yourself, why should I?   I do know that the board members refuse to post on this site, they may read it for entertainment, but I know their motto is -  If 'ya got questions or comments, bring them to the meeting and we will discuss, out in the open. If someone cannot address them directly, that person's questions don't deserve the time and  effort required to debate them.  If they are that important to you, and to all citizens as you claim, why don't you bring them up in a public forum?  There may be others with similar concerns/questions as yours.  I have been to some of the meetings.  I have even asked a question or two from time to time.  Sometimes the answers I have received indicate there are circumstances of the decision I knew nothing about. Underlying factors are huge. As far as the conversation on this site, I have tons of time on my hands.... I can debate all day long if you like.  So, if you take my challenge, just think about this... I may run too, for the sole purpose  to be sitting next to you in the front of the room.  Just to be there to vote the opposite of you everytime you vote.  How would you like that? Seems to me that no matter what the current board says or does, you say it's wrong, for whatever reason. How would you like someone to criticize you like that?  Like I said, they aren't perfect, but I would imagine YOU don't shine like a diamond either.
Wutzup	Questions Posted: Saturday, March 17, 2007 9:15 PM My mistake. I thought you didn't know how to spell trustee.
snowbird	Questions Posted: Sunday, March 18, 2007 8:34 AM emtae, ssa ym ssik nac ouy... cockroaches and pinheads hurl vomit like RESPECT FOR AUTHORITY... true americans salute RESPECT FOR LAW... you can tell who's who on this site... rockhead spits on the law, deserves the spit of the people... the bill of rights includes the right to bear arms for a reason...
snowbird	Questions Posted: Sunday, March 18, 2007 8:42 AM wutzup, that was the best comment ever posted... priceless...
trusty	Questions Posted: Sunday, March 18, 2007 12:20 PM Ha! You are so funny!  That was the best you can come up with... no other whitty banter? What I find the funniest of all, is when someone actually confronts you with the facts, you shut up.  So, lets just lay this out.  You and a few others on this site go on and on about how the current board has their head stuck in the sand. They are in cahoots with the Rheaults and the Sarazins you claim.  How they have no clue how to run a township, this is illegal, that is illegal.  But, when push comes to shove and you are confronted with comments that challenge your point of view, you won't say anything else.  Like I said before, you like to hide behind this anonomous website because your purpose is to do nothing more than stir the pot. I think you are not really interested in the truth anymore. In fact, I think you couldn't recognize it if it hit you on side of the head.
downrighthonest	Questions Posted: Sunday, March 18, 2007 9:10 PM Trusty   Are you from the other side of the moon?   How could the members of the Baord have copies before the meeting when BC opened the "alleged " bid in front of the Board? The only bid they received.   Who was the fifth firm contacted? Where did you get the no thanks stuff?No faxed "no thanks" letters were presented by BC to the Board or the public.   Who hammered out the contract? In front of whom? The Board approved the bid infront of us with virtually no discussion other than it was for $195K, with 100K payed in advance. And Arko , thru his tears said he would have liked to have been paid the whole $195K in advance, but he understood how we needed help and he would agree to  the arrangement. Ain't that generous?    Why should we have to resort to the FOIA inorder to see what is going on?   How could they have a proper discussion of the item at hand when they didn't even have a copy to look at?   Stay on track pal - don't wffle the truth
tiz	Questions Posted: Monday, March 19, 2007 10:13 AM trusty is not from the moon.  shes from the propaganda ministry. she dont attened meetings either cause if she did she wouldn 't be spouting about bring it to the board and we'll have a nice long discussion and get the answer.    HA Ha   They just blew 195 thou of our money and the only people who know whats in the contract are arco and his cronies and cadwell. hes a croniie too. the other three members did there deep discussing when they all said yess to go for a bid that our lawyer had,t even seen or approved.  some guy tried to get them to have another meeting after the lawyer saw it where everrybody could see it and talk about it nut dreamland boy loubule said oh no the tax commission has been so golet us have until march 31 we have to hurry and get it down there for apporoval. thenccadwell says we can all read it.  boy o boy - you talk about a fix and theyr doing it righ tin front of our eyes and nobody says diddly.   when are the honest people of TL going to get of there dead butts and start l;egal action against these guys?
birds eye	Questions Posted: Monday, March 19, 2007 10:21 AM Trusty, I went back and reread your posts.  Uhmmm, could you please restate any facts that you presented and feel Zup ignored or ran from? I just don't see it. But what I would say is clear, a few of us have asked pertinent questions (and I am not talking about the personal insults you and others are slinging) and yet neither  you nor your buddies address them.I find that most interesting. This site could prove to be productive if there were some intelligent exchange of ideas and thoughts.
allen	Questions Posted: Monday, March 19, 2007 10:29 AM Now you are attacking the new board too, will you people ever be satisfied? They don't claim to be perfect, just trying to do a good job for TLT. Go out for a walk or something and get a grip.
birds eye	Questions Posted: Monday, March 19, 2007 10:55 AM Allen, haven't heard from you in a while. You must have been on a LONG walk. So now are you ready to address some of the questions that were asked of you?  I sure hope so.
Wutzup	Questions Posted: Monday, March 19, 2007 10:56 AM A while back Lynn gave us an address to write to at the tax commission about our concerns. Here it is again- Kelli Sobel, Executive Secretary, State Tax Commission,P.O.Box 30471, Lansing Michigan, 48909-7971. Not everybody reading the posts wants to voice their concern here, but you would be doing a great service to write to Kelli Sobel and tell her they should take a close look at the wording of the ad for applicants on the reappraisal, and at the wording and the great sums on the contract proffered by DPM, before it's too late. We have until March 31 before it becomes an unfortunate reality.
Take your meds	Questions Posted: Monday, March 19, 2007 2:41 PM snowbird   I see emtae was right.....write a post not slinginging any mud and you get called "cockroaches, pinheads, rockhead".   How does the right to bear arms have anything to do with the post emtae wrote? I can see free speach is not encouraged here unless you tote the line of one side or the another. Was your comment about the right to bear arms suppose to scare me??? I would hope, taking in consideration your advanced years and maturity that you wouldn't stoop that low. Am I wrong?     Call your doctor....you need better meds.
snowbird	Questions Posted: Monday, March 19, 2007 4:01 PM only the first line addressed emtae and emtae knows why... for the rest, if the shoe fits wear it...
Lynn Torkelson	Change of Meeting Date Posted: Monday, March 19, 2007 7:29 PM Please Note: The March Torch Lake Township board meeting has been changed to Thursday, March 29, 2007, at 6:30 p.m. It will be held in Hubbell. This change notice is posted on the bulletin board in front of the Hubbell Community Center. Lynn Torkelson
trusty	Questions Posted: Monday, March 19, 2007 7:52 PM Allen, No, they will never be happy.  They will find something to complain about no matter what.  Like I said before, the current board doesn't get it right all the time, but they try to do what is right for everyone. Others would rather the board sit back and let the state take charge of  the role.  $195K is cheap compared to what the State would give us a bill for if they oversaw the reassessment.  DPM was offered the contract to reassess when they went down to the meeting in Dec. Arko said this at the January meeting. State Tax Commission asked them if they wanted to do it, they would hire them right then and there.  NO bid necessary. DPM said they told the tax commission they knew TLT couldn't afford that. Guess it would have been a time and material job - that would have bankrupt the twp.  IF DPM were truly out to get rich, as some seem to think, they could have saved the time and hassle and just bypassed the twp. God knows how muich the bill would have been. Then add the state's admin fee on top of it.  As it is the state is charging TLT for every correspondence it makes in regards to the reassessment.  I am sure that will be hefty enough.   TLT would not have been able to pay a bill like that - I would bet  it would have been way over 195K - if they didn't payup when the state wanted the money, the state would withold the revenue sharing it gives the twp every year until the bill was paid.  TLT's revenue money for the most part would have been gone, since the revenue sharing makes up a good portion of the income the twp operates on.  The twp would have been inoperable without a revenue source. I can't for the life of me figure out how this would have been better.
trusty	Questions Posted: Monday, March 19, 2007 8:06 PM You must not have been at the Feb meeting. Brian READ ALOUD the "thanks but no thanks" letters.  Check the minutes to see who they were from. One was from Landmark Appraisal from downstate, one from Brook Appraisal (same guy that gave us the ballpark figure of $160 last year), one was from JP Company.  There were a couple of others, but I didn't get to write down the names.  I don't recall Cadwell opening any letters there. He did have a bunch of papers in front of him, as did the rest of the board.  I think he said something along the lines of "we received 1 bid".  They didn't have a bid opening ceremony or anything like that I can recall. How do you expect DPM to pay their help if they don't get part of the contract paid when the work starts?  He said at the meeting they were going to hire 6-8 workers that have done this before. I don't imagine they want to wait until December to get paid.  Ever have a garage built or a house built by a contractor?  Standard practice is 1/2 down at contract signing. I don't know who hammered out the contract, or if they are done with it. Cadwell said at the meeting they would have something drawn up by the attorney for review and signing. I have no idea where they are in this process.   Who is stretching the truth?  Seems to me I was the only one paying attention at the meeting, not sitting in the back whispering to those sitting next to me.
cooker	Questions Posted: Monday, March 19, 2007 8:51 PM Trustee, If you are not ON the board, you have a direct pipe line, it would seem.  Otherwise how are you privy to information that other mere taxpayers don't have and don't tell us it's because you pay attention at the monthly meetings because you claim to have facts that were NOT given at the meetings.  I think it's great that you're sharing some of the apparently secret information.  It would be nice, if you are not on the board, if some of the current board members would use this forum for "setting the record straight."  That is assuming we don't have it straight already.  If the board won't take advantage of this avenue, maybe they can use you to enlighten the rest of us.
Wutzup	Questions Posted: Monday, March 19, 2007 10:24 PM Hey Trusty or Trustee, who is this JP Company you say turned down the job? Can someone find out who the other two companies are? I find this a little hard to believe. But first I'd like to know who JP is. Tell us trusty.
gma_gee03	Questions Posted: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 9:32 AM you keep saying $195,000 is cheap   why are we having to put out this money   this should all have been done   it is time all this was out in the open              gee
Lynn Torkelson	Being Constructive Posted: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 9:55 AM Take your meds  and snowbird, Free speech is definitely encouraged here regardless of your take on the issues. That said, I have to agree with Take your meds  that extreme name-calling does not advance the discussion in a constructive way. The examples given by Take your meds certainly fall into the extreme category, in my opinion. In the grand scheme of things, people dissatisfied with the status quo tend to speak up more than those who are happy. But when you use inflammatory language to express your dissatisfaction, you alienate the very folks you want to convince. I'm not a censor (and have no intention to become one) but my strong personal preference is to have the discussions here remain as constructive as possible. Lynn Torkelson
Take your meds	Being Constructive Posted: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 10:59 AM Lynn,   Thank you for being the one constant, impartial voice of reason.   " The true test of a first rate mind is the ability to hold two contradictory ideas at the same time" - F. Scott Fitzgerald   Take your meds
Wutzup	Being Constructive Posted: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 11:30 AM Quoting a self-desructive alcoholic doesn't reflect so well on you tym. You are the one who needs to get back on your meds. Looks like the backward vulgarian got to snow bird. I didn't get it until he wrote that so thanks him for showcasing it for the rest of us. Now let's hear what Trusty has to say about who JP is since he knows so much about how the board does business. Come on Trusty - tell us! Who is this JP?
Take your meds	Being Constructive Posted: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 12:06 PM Wutzup,   Once again you have proven all you can do is attack and criticize. Who cares were the quote came from. It is the content of the quote not who said it. I used it to highlight the fact that Lynn seems to be able to run this sight impartially. Besides, the quote wasn't directed to you. I wouldn't make the mistake of thinking you could enter any meaningful conversation with an impatial, unbias opinion. You would rather be part of the clan that would alienate those of us who would like to see progress without fighting. This will be your downfall. Nobody wants to listen to you becouse all you do is criticize and attack people for stating their opinions. Your way of thinking is what the problem in TLT is.   Take your meds.
Wutzup	Being Constructive Posted: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 12:16 PM Want to be unbiased? why not stop criticizing and attacking, yourself. Now who is going to tell us who JP is? Anybody?
Ace	Being Constructive Posted: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 1:38 PM Wutzup I am sure if you contacted the township office they would be more then happy to give you that information. I know they have been very happy to answer any of my questions.
Wutzup	Being Constructive Posted: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 3:19 PM Thanks Ace but I already know the answer. I'd just like to have Trusty tell us all here since he knows the way the board works so well. It will surprise a lot of folks.
Me	Being Constructive Posted: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 3:48 PM Alright Wutzup i'll bite I did a google searh and came up with  JP company Julie Pulling, CMAE 3 325 Ewers Road Leslie Mi 49251     What's special about this?
Wutzup	Being Constructive Posted: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 4:15 PM Nope. Not even close. Try again.
Beardog	Being Constructive Posted: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 6:47 PM JP Company   A small, personal company specializing in assessment administration services. Julie Pulling, CMAE 3 JP Company, PLLC 325 Ewers Road Leslie, MI 49251 (517) 623-6640 For more information, please e-mail: julie@jpcompanypllc.com website:  jpcompanypllc.com
Lynn Torkelson	Suggestions Needed Posted: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 7:07 PM Matt Arko called me this evening to suggest an informal public meeting where he would answer questions that have come up in these discussions about the contract for the township's reappraisal. Matt would like to dispel the impression that anything secretive is happening in the letting of the contract. To clear the air, Matt would like to get together this week. The Community Center in Hubbell would be available for the meeting. From my perspective, Matt's offer sounds like a fine opportunity for us to learn some facts that would otherwise be harder to obtain. However, I have no idea what evening would be best for people, so I told Matt that I would solicit ideas on the timing and call him tomorrow. I'd really appreciate any suggestions from you readers on which evening would be best! Suggest a time too (but not too late for us old folks). Lynn Torkelson
trusty	Being Constructive Posted: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 8:22 PM Whutzup, the google search done by others  revealed who JP Company is. Why do you think I know anything about them other than they are an assessing firm and they declined to bid on the reassessment?  I never said I knew them or anything about them.  Who did you think they were? I only put the names of the company's I wrote down that declined to bid. Why didn't you ask who Landmark Appraisal was? Same answer, an assessing firm that decline to bid on the reappraisal.  I think it has been said here before, but don't hold it against me if it hasn't, that  there are only a select few companies that can take on this magnitude of work.  Just search by "assessing or appraisal firms in Michigan" and see how many you get that would be qualified.  Obviously the job is large and  our location doesn't do us any favors because of the distance required to travel to get here from downstate.  I would imagine those factors weighed into the decision as to whether or not they would bid.  Like I said before, I was at the meeting, paid attention to what was being said, wrote a few notes and posted a synopsis for you.  If you don't like it, that's fine, but others seem to be interested.  Just bringing another point of view to the table. On the other note that Lynn posted... I commend Matt Arko for saying he would hold a meeting for questions to be asked about the bid submitted.  I think you should take him up on it.
trusty	Being Constructive Posted: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 8:24 PM Let me know where the surprise comes in.  Really, I missed it althogether.
downrighthonest	Being Constructive Posted: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 9:30 PM We should all be overwhelmed by Arkos generous offer to hold a public meeting to discuss all the bids we didn't get.  Why him? He has no responsibility in this matter. He is just a bidder, isn't he? what does he care why others declined to bid? I really don't think he is qualified to speak for Cadwell  --- yet.   While the google search done by others is very helpfull, Cadwell did not present any other paper for the edification of the Board or of those citizens present.  He only spoke of other companies that expressed no interest - he presented no documentation to support these statements. Very similar to all the assessors he spoke to that wern't interested in bidding for the assessors job.  What say you?   Now why does arko presume to undertake Cadwells reponsibilities?
Ace	Being Constructive Posted: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 8:50 AM My understanding from Lynn's post is that Mr. Arko would talk about the wording of the contract and not other bidders.
allen	Being Constructive Posted: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:40 PM When push comes to shove you dont want to learn, just complain. Not surprized.
Lynn Torkelson	Public Meeting Scheduled Posted: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 4:16 PM Matt Arko will meet with interested citizens at the Hubbell Community Center next Monday, March 26, at 6:30 p.m. He will have printouts of the reassessment contract available for review and questions. As things stand now, the contract is in the fine-tuning stage, being reviewed and tweaked by the attorneys. The current timetable calls for delivery of the final version to the supervisor by tomorrow noon. When the contract is set, Matt will email me a copy that I will put up on this web site for public review. Note that Matt will not be in a position to discuss past assessment issues (and the Monday meeting will not address those issues), but Matt does know all about the reassessment contract and the plans to implement it. He is quite willing to answer any questions about those topics. Lynn Torkelson
downrighthonest	Public Meeting Scheduled Posted: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:12 PM I really can't believe what I am reading.   At the Board meeting the Supervisor refuses to allow the public to view the bid document.   The Board votes to approve a document they haven't even seen.   Now the bidder Arko gratuitously offers to meet with the citizenry to "explain & discuss" the document which has already been approved by the Board, and for which the Board has already agreed to pay him $195,000.00.   Where is the demand from the board members that the requirements of the Open Meetings Act be met?  Where is the outrage from the citizenry at the stupidity of what is going on? After the deed is done Arko is now going to explain how he did the deed to us while Bryan stood by steering the Board to vote to agree to accept?   Who is kidding who? They are now beginning to realize that eyebrows are being raised at the way this so-called "bid" has been handled.  No doubt the attorney has been doing some coaching on how to correct the violations of law which have occurred.   meds we all need your help - point us to a supplier!
smithmi	Public Meeting Scheduled Posted: Thursday, March 22, 2007 8:50 AM Bidding:   I do not work for Treasury but do work for another department of State Government.  In our department we have pre-qualified appraisal companies that have been screened and approved to do government contract work.  While the system is not fool proof and companies could get together and fix a price it is unlikly.    If a individual wished to obtain an appraisal independent of ours they can. Because of the specific report writing requirement we require that a company from the pre approved list be selected. We supply the list of pre approved companies, if the company is not on our list they can apply for screening and approval.   As a state agency we are required to seek bids from five preapproved companies, bid are forwarded to another part of the agency for opening, review and final approval. Many time the companies we request bids from are not interested in bidding on a job.  Their failure to bid does not invalidate the process or final selection.   I believe a similar method of selection and oversite would be employed by the State Tax Commission tho I don't have first hand knowledge.
Take your meds	Public Meeting Scheduled Posted: Thursday, March 22, 2007 9:08 AM downrighthonest, Can you explain to me how the Open Meetings Act has been violated in this matter? I don't have a firm handle on it's requirements. Lynn, maybe you can shed some light on this for me. Does your little Red Book have anything about it? If so can you put a condensed version on this page?   Is during a board meeting the right time to have the public reveiw this bid document? Is the document available for reveiw now?   Get your own meds, they are way to expensive to share with all(both sides of this issue) who need them.
Lynn Torkelson	Open Meetings Act Posted: Thursday, March 22, 2007 11:25 AM Indeed, the Red Book  contains a specific section on the Open Meetings Act on pages 53-57. But most everywhere you look in the Red Book  you find additional references to the Opening Meetings Act. Rather than attempting to summarize the Open Meetings Act here, something I am most  unqualified to do, I suggest that folks download and read this authoritative article from Michigan Township News,  Open Meetings Act: Opening the Doors to Public Meetings. A summary of the Open Meetings Act can be found on the MTA web site, which was the source of the article I made available for downloading here. Lynn Torkelson
snowbird	Being Constructive Posted: Thursday, March 22, 2007 4:07 PM fat lady not singing yet..  state must approve contract...
tiz	Being Constructive Posted: Thursday, March 22, 2007 9:56 PM Lynn   All the people that live in TLTwp dont read this stuff  How will they no about arcos little meeting to explain - explain what? How he and the board got together to get him this contract? Him an his two shady buds especially the one withthe big mouth.  See in the paper he just got another contract to do another twp.    Tell me how the arco will have a copy of the contract to hand out but BC refused to hand it out at the meeting. Will it already be proved by the State come Mar 26? What in hell is going on here?   If it aint the open meetings its the freedom of inforrmation whats been ripped up by BC and his board. Its time the cops got inthe act to find out whose doing you no what to whom.  We are being lied too and stole from and by a guy sworrn to protect us from this -----
Me	Being Constructive Posted: Friday, March 23, 2007 8:36 AM They haven't signed a contract yet. It still needed to be drawn up by atternoys for both sides. If you read Lynn's post they hoped to have the contract back from the atternoys sometime this week. I assume they will sign it at the March meeting.
Lynn Torkelson	Contract Not Ready Yet Posted: Friday, March 23, 2007 1:02 PM Work on the reassessment contract did not finish yesterday and one of the attorneys is unavailable today. I was hoping to have the contract available for review online over the weekend, but that won't be possible now. When I get more information, I'll post it here. Lynn Torkelson
birds eye	Contract Not Ready Yet Posted: Friday, March 23, 2007 1:31 PM Zup, Tiz....you have lost me. I have no idea what your real beef is. Seems like there was an inside game going between you and a couple of BJ posters. I wasn't interested in that. But if you have something of importance, how about you spell it out...no more games. I am not sure where the FOI act plays out in this or the Open Meetings Act. Please explain. In the past, you've brought up some very valid and very good points (when you've stuck to the politics, not the personal bantering). Why don't you start from the beginning of this contract issue and lay it all out. I am trying to understand this but am really having trouble. I am not convinced that some of the things done by this Board are intentional and planned. I would say it's their incompetence and inexperience showing. I've said it before, no matter what Board one serves on there is a huge learning curve. Typically it's a couple of years of listening, learning and fact finding before a member can be a real "player"! Some take longer than that! I think in our case, some of the Board member's agendas and a clear vengeance for some people and groups also cloud their thinking. That's a real concern. But....all of you that voted for the recall and then voted against Elsa Mugford voted against experience, knowledge and unbiased decision making. You got what you wanted. So now we all have to deal with it. More than anything, I think this is a clear-cut example of why terms are staggered on so many Boards. Wonder if there is a way to implement that? Any Board would be more effective if they didn't have to deal with the possibility of a new, green Board, a whole-sale change like we saw (minus BC who had a little experience, thanks to the guidance of the other board members). One would have thought BC was smart enough to realize that and would have stuck by his word and backed Ms. Mugford, but didn't. She would have/could have been his one constant, one person he could rely on and lean on for information or for finding answers. He lost a lot of my respect with the way he handled that. What we now have on the table are the big issues. And we are addressing them today because the state is forcing our Board to finally do something about it. So Tiz, Zup if you guys can shed more light and facts on what you have been posting, I would appreciate it.
cooker	Contract Not Ready Yet Posted: Saturday, March 24, 2007 11:45 AM Bird, You make some very VALID points but have you figured out why questions are never answered?  Isn't answering concerns an avenue to resolution of problems?  Is it possible that the nay sayers have no legitmate answers?   Your comments about Elsa are so true.  We could have an experienced, intelligent voice on the current board if only the Super had kept his word to her and supported her service on the board.  He didn't and, in effect, lied by saying he would back her.  It appeared that he was quickly swayed (or knew along what he was going to do) by the "concerned" coalition.  It told the electorate right then who was in control of his thinking and actions and it wasn't Brian.  We were headed down the wrong road and BC looked like he was in the driver's seat but he obviously was not and still is not. In my opinion, his thinking is definitely controlled by the Chief.  That group of people worked so hard to oust the sitting board and then just sat back and let us suffer for their efforts.  We have a completely inexperienced, uninformed board, supposedly, handling our township business and they are obviously not qualified to do so.  As you stated, it takes years to learn each job and we have a board that didn't even attend monthly meetings until elected.  Good grief!   It's very interesting that a non-board member has been given the assignment to address the electorate next week.  Does he speak for our Super?  Why doesn't BC handle it himself or is he incapable of doing so?  At least I'm glad that BC didn't accept Lorie Jukuri's offer to hold public informational meetings.
tiz	Contract Not Ready Yet Posted: Saturday, March 24, 2007 3:26 PM bird   it don't take experienced politicians to teke the time to read the green or red book or whatever color   it dont take experience sitting at the boardto ask to see the document the bc is holding in his hand at the board meeting, it don't take an experienced elected politician to say well wait 15 while karen runs off 50 copys so we can all have a lokk together and talk about it .iot don't take half a brain to know that its against the law to refuse to let a txpayer have a copy of the only bid youve got in your hand like jukuri and the other guy asked forand cadwell refused to do. this site has nothing official about it  why did arco decide he is the b ig one and hell explain everting that bc would not . is the board holding secret meetings to settle this contract?  bc said we couldnt see it untl it had been approved by the lawyers and by the tax guys inn lansing -  then we could see it like after it is all signed seeled and delivered with 100 thou to arco.   why is lynn getting in this? whatever he puts up here won't be official until the tax guys ok it  how come lynn is getting a copy to put here but nobody else can have a copy?   i tink lynn should stay out of this one
tiz	Contract Not Ready Yet Posted: Saturday, March 24, 2007 3:30 PM bird   excuse my tiping - my fingers dont work as fast as my brain - espesially when i get mad.
Lynn Torkelson	Contract Not Ready Yet Posted: Saturday, March 24, 2007 5:37 PM tiz, My getting a copy of the reassessment contract (when it is completed) does not mean I have any special pull with the township. When I talked with Matt Arko, I asked him to give me a finished copy right away to put up here. Matt agreed. My idea was that it would be convenient to put the text online so folks could see it immediately without making a trip to the Community Center to get a paper copy. I had hoped people could look at it over the weekend, but that did not pan out. Anyone will be able to get a copy on Monday, once the contract is ready. I do agree that having copies of the bid available to everyone at the February meeting would have been ideal. Lynn Torkelson
Wutzup	Contract Not Ready Yet Posted: Monday, March 26, 2007 9:40 AM Computer problems. I see not a lot has happened in my absence but I don't understand tiz's bee in the bonnet over Lynn getting a copy of the contract to post. Personally I'd like to see a grassroots campaign start right here and now to run Lynn for Supervisor in 08. He's shown his ability to be impartial and open minded, and his curiosity to learn about the stuff he didn't understand. I think with Lynn at the helm, we could rest assured that we were getting the best leadership for our board and the trustees wouldn't matter so much.
Lynn Torkelson	Contract Not Ready Yet Posted: Monday, March 26, 2007 10:26 AM Wutzup, Please don't waste any time or energy on running me for any position on the township board. Not only do I lack the knowledge and experience required to perform those duties to my own satisfaction, but I just don't have the time available to do a proper job. Even if I did have the necessary qualifications, family and work responsibilities absolutely preclude my taking on such a time-consuming responsibility. I'm working instead at becoming a better citizen, having come to realize over the past couple of years (to my regret) that I had been pretty much a total loss in that department. My skills lie in computer programming and business, not politics and government, so my goal now is to contribute as a citizen by providing a place where folks can exchange information and ideas. Whenever I come across information that looks like it might be useful to those who visit here, I will try to put it up on this web site. To me, the reassessment contact falls into that category. Lynn Torkelson
birds eye	Contract Not Ready Yet Posted: Monday, March 26, 2007 11:07 AM Lynn, I appreciate your interest and posts. Keep it up.
tiz	Contract Not Ready Yet Posted: Monday, March 26, 2007 6:22 PM Lynn   Zup has hit the nail on the  head. Yuoll have lots of backers. There aint that much involved once you remove the backroom crap, which you would do. After all brian only goes in to pick up his check and about two hours before the monthly meeting.   you would give leadership & steer a course & don't forget  the worst would be over.  It would be a peace of P for you.   I found a saying which applies to all of us trying to make things better, but specially to you Lynn   edmund burke one of the fathers the constitution said            for evil to happen, all that is necessary is for good men to do nothing- and your one of the good guys   stand up and be counted when your number is called man  Think if all the crap we are righting was FOR YOU where we'd be
Lynn Torkelson	Meeting with Matt Arko Posted: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 12:21 AM Three residents met with Matt Arko Monday evening at the Hubbell Community Center. We reviewed the current language of the reappraisal contract, which Matt explained has already received the approval of the State Tax Commission. However, Brian has not had a chance to review the most recent changes, so Matt was not yet able to release the document. I will put the final version up here as soon as I receive it. Matt did provide copies of the Reappraisal Proposal  that was accepted by the board at the February meeting. That proposal is Attachment 1  to the contract and spells out the work to be done. You can view or download a copy of that document here: Torch Lake Township Reassessment Proposal by DPM. Two provisions have been added to the contract since the proposal was accepted: All reassessment team members (including Matt) will undergo background checks to eliminate anyone with a criminal record. Quality control audits will be performed by an outside firm. Matt also explained that Don Bode will be reviewing the progress of the reassessment at two-week intervals. Lynn Torkelson
Take your meds	Meeting with Matt Arko Posted: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 10:40 AM Lynn,   Stick to your guns. Your doing an outstanding job providing the public with valuable information.    Three people showed up to meet with Arko? Three? I would have thought there would have been more after reading the posts on this sight. Is this sight all talk and no action???   Meds
cooker	Meeting with Matt Arko Posted: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 12:50 PM Meds, So where were you last night?
Take your meds	Meeting with Matt Arko Posted: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 2:13 PM cooker,   My whereabouts last eve are of no concern becouse I don't care to spend my free time questioning this Matt Arko guy about this new contract. I have enough faith in Lynn to post it for my viewing pleasure and the good sense to realize that if the state approves it then, that is that, let the assessments commence and our wallets be ready. I never once wrote in any post that I was even remotely interested in meeting with Arko. I am interested in having someone explain to me how any laws have been broken and prove it. If there is proof then what recourse is being taken? ...if there is any.
cooker	Meeting with Matt Arko Posted: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 2:48 PM Meds, Read you own posting.  Why is it that others that didn't go to the Arko meeting are all talk and no action?  You didn't go.  Are you all talk and no action?  You seem to be good a slinging it but not taking it.
downrighthonest	Meeting with Matt Arko Posted: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 11:04 PM Lynn   Thanks for the info re the meeting with arko   Did you notice you came away empty-handed? You are being worked over by experts.   When cadwell opened the document at the meeting it became a public document that  any citizen in the country is authorized by law to see, & receive a copy of it, which cadwell bluntly refused.   Now the big brewhaha about arko going to "explain everthing" and give you a copy to post. He even told you it had been approved by the Tax Comm. except he couldn't release it cause "cadwell" hadn't approved the final "rephrasing". REALLY   This has been a public document for over a month, approved by the Board & now cadwell is going to do the fine tweeking.  What about the Board? They are the power and final arbitrator - not cadwell or arko.What do you not understand about tis form od democratic government? Why do you insist on letting these people have their way with you? Why do you not challenge them?   Sorry Lynn your naivity is a bit overwhelming.  You are being led around by the nose in a public forum by a couple of con-artists, who are combining to milk the taxpayers for everything they can get.   It is one thing to be fair & even handed, it is another to be a sucker.
Wutzup	Meeting with Matt Arko Posted: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 6:19 AM Downright; once again you have proved all you can do is attack and criticize. And ... Oops, that’s somone else talking. But really Mr Honest, you shouldn’t be hard on Lynn for his quality of fairness in keeping an open mind. Lynn has shown that given time and enough evidence put before him that he catches on to what we’ve been talking about for so long. It doesn’t mean he accepts everything we’ve said carte blanc and I think that’s great because it gives added credibility to us when he finally sees what we mean. Remember what Lincoln said about fooling people. I notice take your meds was scared at the idea of Lynn running for Supervisor. Hmm, you don’t think...?
Lynn Torkelson	Meeting with Matt Arko Posted: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 8:29 AM downrighthonest, When I get the opportunity to receive and distribute potentially useful information, I like to take advantage of it. To the best of my ability, I describe the source of the information and how I obtained it. People can have many reasons for providing the information, some of them self-serving (I don't know that any of us is exempt from that). To my way of thinking, that possibility doesn't justify my withholding the information. Lynn Torkelson
Ace	Meeting with Matt Arko Posted: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 8:30 AM Wutzup You have lost me I don't see where take your meds was scared at the idea of Lynn running for supervisor.
Take your meds	Meeting with Matt Arko Posted: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 11:19 AM cooker, Did I ever once, in any of my post's, ever say I was interested in meeting with Arko? Read the post on this sight, don't read into them.   Wutzup, How you ever came up with the notion that I seem scared is beyond me. If Lynn wants to run for Sup. more power to him. If he addresses the issues during the election process with the same unbias approach he uses here on this sight ...Then he's got my vote.   Lynn, " Great spirits have always encountered opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinion courageously and honestly" -- Albert Einstein Keep on plugging away. You are doing a great job.   Has anyone come up with an answer as to How has the law has been broken? and the proof to back it up? What action is Being taken if the law was broken??   Take your meds
Take your meds	Meeting with Matt Arko Posted: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 12:55 PM Ace,   Maybe you can help. I've been asking if the law concerning the Open meetings act and FOIA has been violated? What is the Proof? And if there is proof what is being done about it? Do you have any insight? It seems to me that if the law was violated and there was proof that it would have been brought to our attention by now. If the law has been broken why hasn't it been addressed at the board meetings by those accusing the board of wrong doing? Perhaps publicly accusing someone of wrong doing without the proof is against the law??? Me thinks I'm not the one scared in these matters. Anyway Ace, help me out if you can.   Take your meds.( Lay off the wine when you take them)
Ace	Meeting with Matt Arko Posted: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 1:45 PM Take your meds, I noticed that you have posed that question a couple times and have yet to receive an answer. I would also like to know the answer to this question. I am sorry I couldn't have been of more help.
cooker	Meeting with Matt Arko Posted: Thursday, March 29, 2007 2:10 PM Lynn, When you see the final contract, will it have the full amount that or township has promised the Arko group?  I'm concerned because I have heard that it is far more than the $190,000 that has been mentioned.   Thanks for all you do.  Your work and time are very much appreciated.
Take your meds	Questions about Law Posted: Thursday, March 29, 2007 2:52 PM Has anyone been able to come up with answers to exactly how the law, with respects to the Open Meetings Act and Freedom Of Information Act, have been trampled/broken as alledged in so many post's?  Is there proof? If there is proof .. what is being done about it?   Meds
downrighthonest	Meeting with Matt Arko Posted: Thursday, March 29, 2007 2:58 PM Lynn   Sorry for the abrupt words. I was just venting steam because the episode went as I expected it would.   Please - I would never ever suggest that you would withhold information - don't read that into my comments.  Sometimes friends have to agree to disagree -- sometimes in the heat of action I am guilty of doing the latter first.   As I have said before; with your logic & patience you eventually arrive at the right conclusion and you are like a breath of fresh air
Lynn Torkelson	Meeting with Matt Arko Posted: Thursday, March 29, 2007 3:57 PM cooker, From the last page of the Reassessment Proposal, I calculate a total of $463,450 that the township will pay DPM Assessing over the next seven years. After the $100,000 initial payment, the township will pay $51,921.43 per year for seven years. The yearly payment breaks down like this: $38,325.00 - regular assessing duties $13,596.43 - paying down reassessment debt The $463,450 total breaks down like this: $268,275 - regular assessing duties $195,175 - total reassessment cost I presume the amounts and payment dates will be made official at tonight's board meeting.     downrighthonest, No offense taken. In fact, anyone who looks at the size of my nose can be excused for figuring that someone must have been pulling on it. (It seems to me it was a lot smaller until I got married.)   Lynn Torkelson
birds eye	Meeting with Matt Arko Posted: Thursday, March 29, 2007 10:12 PM "that's a whole lotta money honey"!
gma_gee03	Meeting with Matt Arko Posted: Thursday, March 29, 2007 11:17 PM and they say people are complaing about nothing dont forget they may need a new computer also                 gee      all i can say it is a sad mess where is the money coming from
smithmi	Meeting with Matt Arko Posted: Monday, April 02, 2007 9:37 AM Looks to me like the board hired a new assessor and folded it into the reassessment contract.  How can you tract the money?