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.