The FACTS
May1st Election Talk
​
This Election was clearly an Establishment vs Citizens race. Some argued:
​
Donald Trump was successful because he was NOT an insider. He asked, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" Is your government being responsive to you?
If your answer is yes, than you may want to vote again for the government insiders; the Establishment. If your answer is No you will want to vote for citizens Katherine Adelaide, Rhonda Kritsings.
​
If you want council members who are like you, citizens with private sector jobs, small business owners, have ideas and concerns; if you want council members who will Listen, Cut water/sewer costs by a meaningful amount, Find solutions for the drug epidemic, and Insist on more business friendly policies, then you will want to Vote for the outsiders; the Citizen Candidates.
​
Establishment:
Mayor Pro-Tem, Diane Foster
Councilman Joe Vigliotti
Planning & Zoning member appointed by the Mayor, Judith Archie Fuller
​
VS
​
Citizens:
Katherine Adelaide
Rhonda Kritsings
​
A better than usual turn out at the polls - nearly 1000 - way to go Taneytown citizens! But the establishment prevailed. Keep watching so you can be discerning when it comes to the truthful facts. Stay engaged so Taneytown will actually be of the people, by the people and for the people!
​
​
Council worried about voter fraud suggests Resolution 02-2017
​
There may have been voter fraud during the Special Election; at least the Maryland 20/20 Watch, which
investigates voter fraud, thought so. Then, President Trump certainly didn't hold back with his observations that fraud is unfortunately a part of U.S. elections. So the Mayor and some of the Council thought they should look at Taneytown's election procedures.
​
Their conclusion: Individuals that can't make it to the polls for whatever reason should not be able to assign (with a signed affidavit) an Agent to pick-up and carry back their ballot. Councilman Wantz said there are a lot of bad people who may commit fraud.
​
The new resolution designed to address the potential that someone in a nursing home or hospital would choose a bad person who would commit fraud to pick-up their ballot and return their voted ballot, struck all the language in the current law allowing Agents to pick up and deliver ballots.
Of course Councilman Frazier objected to this change that would hinder registered voters in all types of last minute situations from casting their votes, citing the fact that had his head on collision occurred a week before an election it would have been impossible under the new law for him to vote. He physically could not have come to the polls and it would have been impossible to follow the procedure put in place in the new ordinance to receive an absentee ballot because it takes to much time in the mail.
​
Frazier displayed a chart laying out the process giving a conservative 2 days for the mail to be delivered.
1. Mail in a request for the application (2 days),
2. Mail back the application to be completed (+2),
3. Complete application for ballot and mail (+2),
4. Mail the ballot to the voter (+2),
5. Vote the ballot and mail back (+2)
Equals a conservative 10 days. That's if the mail is on time and the City responds immediately.
​
An Agent can complete this process in One (1) day. That is why for years MD and most other states allow Agents to carry ballots with the goal of ALL registered voters being able to cast their votes.
​
The Tri-District Republican Club and Republican Women's Club of Taneytown also weighed in against the Resolution. Rhonda Kritsings read the Women's Club letter during public comment asking the Council to reconsider this change.
Special Election Nov 15
​
Thank you so much to the citizens that made it to the polls and voted! Thank you for putting forth the extra effort to reorganize your work schedules, invite your friends, and round up your family members to VOTE NO to the unconstitutional Charter Amendment the citizens petitioned to referendum.
You showed up in force! The results: 1025 total votes including 52 absentee ballots (50 yes, 2 no). We fell short of winning by just 57 votes plus the 50 absentee votes. The final numbers were 458 NO and 515 Yes, before adding the absentee votes.
​
DON'T Lose Hope! We may have lost this battle, but we can win the war by electing council members in the spring to gain the new majority!
The current majority of the council was wise to push for a Special Election if winning this battle was all they had on their minds. It cost the citizens' much to rent voting machines and pump out the propaganda.
Waiting until the spring elections is what Councilman Frazier proposed and he voted against the Special Election because of the taxpayer expense.
We know for a fact that with a little more time the truth would have made sense out of the deception the City was spreading. This deception must be countered. No one would ever vote to take away their own voting rights. That is exactly what happened on November 15th in Taneytown.
It was hoped that this election would bury this amendment for good. Unfortunately, the council still will have an unconstitutional Charter Amendment to deal with. If it is ever put into action, a lawsuit is sure to ensue.
​
We pledge to keep fighting to keep our government accountable and to remind the Mayor and Council they are to work to protect the rights of the people, not to steal them!
Citizens still believe, In America, We the People vote them in, We the People vote them out!
Read the Charter Amendment for yourself: http://taneytown.org/documents/CR2016-01%20-%20Removal%20of%20Elected%20Official%20from%20Office%20FINALID1174.pdf
​​
NOTE: Elected Officials can already be removed from office if they have been
"convicted" of a crime.
Here is what appeared on the ballot compared to the actual language of the Charter Amendment now passed:
​
The Ballot said in part:
Vote - "On whether to amend the City Charter to allow elected officials to be removed from office for
* For three (3) unexcused consecutive meeting absences.
The Actual Wording in the Charter:
Absence. If an elected official fails to attend three (3) consecutive meetings, without being excused by a majority vote of the City Council, which may be given provided that prior notice of the absence was given to the Mayor and City Council in writing. Said position shall be considered immediately vacant, and filled pursuant to the provisions of the Charter.
​
COMMENT: There still is no definition for meeting, regardless of what the YES flyer stated. It could be a regular monthly meeting, a workshop, Parks & Recs meeting or a closed meeting when a councilman is in Africa. The minority will not be able to enforce the same standard on the majority of 3 unexcused absences. This is not equal justice under the law.
​
* For violations of criminal law, Federal or State Law County Codes, the city's Ethics Ordinance or provisions of the City Charter and Code.
Actual Wording in Charter:
B. Just Cause. An elected official may be removed from office for Just Cause by a majority vote of the City Council, after the Council issues a written charge or charges expressing Just Cause, which shall consist of a violation of criminal law, Federal or State
law, County codes and regulations, the City’s ethics law, or provisions contained in the City’s Charter or Code, and holds a public hearing on the matter. Such action is not subject to the veto power of the Mayor, but the Mayor may vote to break a tie.
​
COMMENT: This is a separation of powers problem. The Majority vote accuses, the majority vote judges and penalizes. It's simply unconstitutional. Violation of this section could include a parking ticket, speeding ticket or failure to shovel your walk. There is no equal justice under this law because the minority member will not be able to get the majority to vote against their follow council members that make up that majority. This provision of so called "just cause" is fraught with opportunity for mischief.
​
*By recall petition of voters of the City of Taneytown
Actual wording of the Charter:
Recall. Any elected official, after having been censured by an act of the Mayor
and Council, may be petitioned for recall and removed from office for any reason by the qualified voters of the City of Taneytown, in accordance with the following provisions... .
​
COMMENT: Once again, the majority rules and you gotta love this one, the elected official can be recalled FOR ANY REASON. Abuse of censure-ship has already been demonstrated when the minority council member was censured for allegedly causing the City Clerk to cry. Really? Again, this is unequal justice under the law.
​
Citizens that want government run the American Way VOTED NO on NOvember 15th!
​
Thank you!
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
Click and Open PDF
​
​APRIL 7, 2017
Budget Hearing or Establishment Rally?
​
At the Budget Hearing on Wednesday, instead of having the Treasurer give a summary of the 2018 Budget to the citizens so they could ask questions and make comments, the Mayor and City Manager spent your tax dollars for yet another Davenport report.
Davenport put utility numbers together and gave a report (Not limited to 3 minutes of course) on their version of the Frazier suggestion for reducing sewer rates significantly to give the people relief. They were paid to report how cutting the sewer rate as Frazier suggested would be bad for the City.
​
Are you kidding me? The Mayor and Council are not considering Frazier's suggestion in the Budget. They are suggesting a 5% reduction or an average of $10.00 per quarter, which has been called a slap in the face by some. Why then would they spend your money to use the Budget Hearing to trash Frazier's ideas? Could it be they want citizens to believe there is nothing they can do? Was this simply a political stunt to discredit any candidate who says they will reduce the sewer rate significantly?
​
Meanwhile, nowhere in the Budget documents does the Town show the huge surpluses the City is holding on to. We think from questioning the City Manager there was over $7Million in the Utility Fund, until they moved $1.3 Million to the General Fund Balance or Savings Account.
The real Frazier Plan is to give back to the citizens through a reduction in the sewer rate, at least the $2Million surplus recently deposited into the Utility Savings Account. The Town is trying to confuse the citizens with their paid "experts".
​
The City's original analysis was even better than Frazier projected. That analysis showed it would take about 6 years to give back the $2Million surplus by cutting the sewer rate in half. Citizens need real relief, and they need it now.
​
BACK TO THE SURPLUS at Town Hall - In addition to the $7Million surplus in the Utility Fund, it was revealed that about $4.5Million is in the General Fund savings account.
Nearly $12Million in surplus funds is 3 times the entire City General Budget and 1 1/2 times the Budget including the Water/Sewer Utility Budget. In-other-words, the City of Taneytown could literally collect zero tax dollars and zero water/sewer fees for a year and cover their entire general budget and utilities budget for at least one year with some left over.
How about we give some of that savings back to the citizens now!
​
Incidently, Davenport was given unlimited time to trash candidates running with the idea of significantly cutting sewer rates and Council Candidate Judith Archie Fuller was given unlimited camera time as a member of the Planning Commission to discuss a matter even though the Chairman of the Commission was in the audience. The Establishment had spoken.
​
But - Council Candidate Katherine Adelaide was rudely interrupted during the Budget Hearing, her question never answered, and told to sit down by the Mayor before her three minutes was up during her discussion of potential voter fraud that occurred in the special election.
Another citizen was gaveled to silence, and one citizen was told only three minutes for the public hearing on the budget since there was a whole room of people that want to comment. When that citizen took her seat, her questions unanswered and comments not heard, NO ONE else spoke. The entire hearing was finished in less than 15 minutes. Establishment mission accomplished - besides the surpluses being revealed - no meaningful discussion and input was allowed during the Budget Hearing.
​
Davenport Study shows Water/Sewer Rates could have been lowered!
ARE YOU READY? The citizen's learned that over the last couple of years the water/sewer enterprise fund has accumulated an additional $2 MILLION dollars. That's right, a $2 MILLION surplus - additional dollars in the savings account.
​
You may be thinking the same thing as some of us in the room that evening. Why then did the council raise the water/sewer rates for the last two years?
​
Well, the talk was all about how should the town use this new founded surplus. To pay down debt? to make cash capital expenditures so as not to increase debt?
​
By reducing rates by 3%? Ok we will take what we can get, but you may recall the majority of the council just raised the rate this year by 3.4%. Sounds like one of those sales where everything is marked up 15% for a few weeks before the big sale where customers get a 10% discount.
After much questioning Davenport finally gave us a figure of about $120,000.00 less collected if rates are cut by 3%. At that rate, how about we cut the sewer rate in half as Councilman Frazier suggested, oh about two years ago. That would be good relief for the citizens; a solid two years.
Meanwhile, as development moves forward, 1. more hook fees are collected and more people pay in monthly. 2. The Council can look for more equitable ways for calculating rates, 3. the capital debt service can be optimized by refinancing and
4. debt payoff timing can be compared to capital project expenditure timing so that expenditures are equal or less than current expenditures. 5. Then the Council can explore other revenue producing or savings ideas such as sale of excess water clean and gray, or 6. installation of renewable energy generation to lower power bills.
Perhaps, then the town will be able to sustain adequate revenues with lower rates and discover ways to bridge future potential gaps should revenues actually decline.
​
Wait a minute, that sounds like the ideas presented by Councilman Frazier several months ago to be incorporated with a revolving fund that would have (and still can if the right decisions are made ) given the water/sewer payers, that's Taneytown citizens and businesses, RELIEF. Hmmm.
​
Looks like the Davenport study proved out the idea of a revolving fund where all revenues generated by the enterprise fund go into a savings account and are used to support the total expenditures of the enterprise fund. In the last two years this $2 Million would have offset the 1.8 Million cut in revenues generated by the suggested 50% reduction of the sewer bill.
​
Certainly warrants a second look!
​
As the Davenport group raved about how well the City was doing financially by raising the water/sewer rates over the past few years; the question still remained: How well are the citizens of Taneytown doing with the raised rates over the the past few years?
​
Unfortunately, some of the citizens are no longer here to answer that question. They have made good on their threat to move if something was not done about those water/sewer rates.
​
Water/Sewer rates CAN be lowered. Vote for candidates who will pledge to do just that in the spring election!
​
​
In this year's budget, water/sewer rates were raised when for the first time the total revenues were equal to the total expenses. Water/Sewer rates could have been flat this year, but the majority of the council voted to raise it after moving $329,000.00 worth of salaries, including 50% of City Manager Heine's $91,000.00+ salary, into the water/sewer enterprise funds. Then, the $329,000.00 that was no longer an expense in the general funds was spent elsewhere in the budget. Did they give the taxpayer's their money back? No they spent it. Then they claimed they did not increase taxes - (FALSE, taxes were increased by the $329,000.00 they spent plus the increased revenue from assessments increasing slightly) - and they congratulated each other for only raising the water/sewer rates by 3.4% when Davenport projected the need for a 5% increase. How deceitful.
Frazier water/sewer presentation 2/2017
The City of Taneytown crunched these numbers: Assuming Builder will build 360 homes in
15 years.
Bottom line:
1. At the end of 15 years there will be $5,170,985.00 in the Savings Account or Revolving Account including the $1.7 that can be
shifted back to the General Fund Savings Account at any time.
2. New Users' water/sewer payments added to current payers will on average pay enough to cover all but $52,000.00 of the operating and debt service costs (That is at the sewer cut in half rate!) by the 15th year.
​
FAR FROM BANKRUPTCY, HUH?
FRAZIER WINS - "Willfully" Looses
​
Northern News - August 3, 2017
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
Pro Se citizen Robin Frazier armed with one paralegal and one witness, proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Taneytown City Council violated the Maryland Open Meetings Act four times during the June 22, 2016 closed meeting at city hall.
​
Visiting Judge Daniels from Baltimore complemented Frazier and her team of two on presenting their case against the City Council of Taneytown and stated that she did better than some seasoned litigation attorneys. This lawsuit was Frazier's first pro se appearance in the Circuit Court.
​
Judge Daniels found that the council violated the Open Meetings Act when there was no notice given to the public of an open meeting, neglecting to give citizens the right to observe their elected officials debate and decide whether or not to hold a closed meeting on a particular topic. Three other violations included failure to produce a written statement of the purpose for closing a meeting before the vote to close, failure to produce minutes for the alleged "open meeting," and failure to comply with all of the requirements for closed meeting minutes.
​
However, the most recent 2014 Open Meetings Act revisions included proof of "willfulness" which has not been defined yet in Maryland courts, until today. The judge found that the councils' failures to comply were not "willful" and ruled in the favor of the defendants, setting a precedent which may make it easier for public bodies subject to the Open Meetings Act to hold secret meetings which violates the spirit of the law. Frazier has 30 days to appeal the decision.
​
Katherine Adelaide
Letter to the editor below on this topic:
​
Remember how the Council rushed to have a closed meeting on June 22, 2016 when Councilman Frazier was out of town?
Remember how two citizens were turned away at the door and told "no part of the meeting was open to the public"?
​
Remember how at the same time the petition to put to referendum the unconstitutional Charter Amendment that allowed the majority of the council to remove or recall the minority members was being qualified?
​
Remember there was a lawsuit to try and keep the council accountable to the people?
​
READ BELOW to get the bottom line:
​
​
Imagine how well a seasoned attorney would have done! Should the judge's ruling that No public notice, No minutes and No statement of reason and topic is not enough evidence that there was No open meeting stands, than the Open Meetings Act is totally undermined. Perhaps this will prompt a practicing attorney to engage if there is an appeal.
Council SECRET MEETINGs:
City Manager Heine says lawsuit costs exceed $52,000. Why didn't Council admit violations and avoid suit?
Citizens want apology! read why below
Flaws in Davenport Analysis – Let’s Compare
​
Click PDF next to the red box – View the City of Taneytown numbers & analysis
Davenport Page 1 Results and Observations:
​
Report: bullet 1. Utility Fund begins incurring losses in FY 2018. Losses increase each year.
The City of Taneytown projections: True in the first 2 years. That is the idea, that the reduction in sewer rate is subsidized with the $6.3 surplus in the Savings Account until the number of new residents eventually cover the costs. The loss is smaller and smaller each year until new revenue begins to add to the Savings Account in the 11th year according to the City of Taneytown numbers (presumably put together by the Treasurer) The lowest balance in the Savings Account is in the 10th year at $2.3 Million plus the $1.7 Million owed to general fund. By year 15, the Savings Account has a total of $5.1 Million including the $1.7 owed to the general fund.
Report: bullet 2. Under assumption of 12 new connections per year (homes built) all the Utility Fund Cash is completely exhausted by roughly FY 2022.
This is simply unrealistic. If the builder only builds 12 homes per year of the 366 units approved, HE will go bankrupt. That’s 30 years to build-out. Not likely.
​
Report: bullet 3. Using 25 connections per year Utility Fund Cash would drop below Best practice/Financial Policy levels in 5 years.
25 is NOT aggressive. That would take 15 years to build-out 366 units. Again, not likely. These assumptions also do not consider any other potential connections, residential or commercial. How much water will the New Pot Plant Foster and Fuller invited into Taneytown use?
The City of Taneytown numbers show that in the 5th year using the 25 connections, the Utility Fund Cash is $2,785,596.00 plus $1.7 Million owed to the general fund. That’s more than 100% of the operating expenditures.
Report: bullet 4. Future Capital will be required for the Water and Sewer System.
Good Point. Why won’t the Town lay out the future capital needs so we can see them and consider when they are needed? At the same time, debts will be paid in full too which are not in the assumptions. $360,000.00 per year – paid off in 2019, $33,745.00 per year paid off in 2021.
The City numbers show the lowest Cash in Savings in the 25 connection scenario is $4Million including the $1.7 Million owed to the general funds.
​
Report: bullet 5 page 1 The Utility Enterprise Fund would become reliant on General Fund support.
That’s just False. Again, the lowest Utility Fund Cash – or Savings Account balance according to the City numbers is $2.3 Million plus $1.7 Million owed to the general fund. The revenues climb beginning in year 11 to $5.1 Million in the 15th year, including the $1.7 Million owed to the general fund. If more connections are made, residential and commercial, these numbers will be greater.
Davenport – Page 3 Debt service Coverage Ratio:
City would immediately fall below half of the Best Practice/Financial Policy Debt Service Coverage
The Utility Fund Cash or Savings Account is made up of rate and fee surpluses paid by the citizens. The current balance is $6,388,637.00 after $1.3 was moved to the general fund, and $1.7 of the $6.3M still due to the general fund. It is realized that a revolving savings account would decrease at first to subsidize total costs. Costs that include a pumping station the developer was to pay for in their first agreement, by the way.
The Debt Service Coverage must include the subsidy and there is nothing wrong with that when the cash balance is so high and new revenues are being generated. The plan is to use surplus dollars to pay the difference in revenue that occurs when the sewer rate is cut in half. As homes are built and new users pay their monthly bills the difference gets smaller and smaller until one day the users are paying enough to cover all of the costs. The City numbers show this begins in year 11. In that year, the Utility Savings Account has a balance of $2,399,379.00 plus the $1.7 Million owed to the general fund.
It is NOT the Best Practice for the Town to tax and fee its citizens so much they can’t afford to live in Taneytown anymore!
​
Davenport - Page 4 Cash and Equivalents
Would run out of fund cash by FY 2022
FALSE. Again, I don’t know what numbers City Manager Heine gave Davenport, but the City numbers show lowest point in Savings Cash is $4 Million including the $1.7 owed to the general fund.
​
Davenport – Page 5
Cash would fall below Best Practices level of 75%
City numbers show: Operating Expenditures in 2020 = $1,462,939.00; the Projected Savings Cash balance in 2020 = $3,401,597.00. That’s 200% in the City’s Frazier Analysis. No worries there!
​
Davenport – Page 7 User Rate Impact Analysis
Shows over $100.00 savings for most users
Great! The City numbers did not reveal that. Also interesting to note is 2016 was a 13% increase in rates; 2017 3.5% increase. 16.5% increase in just the last two years.
​
Davenport – Page 8 No New Connections
Shows two years to give back the recent $2M surplus if there are no new homes built and sewer rates cut 50%
Agreed, however, this scenario is highly unlikely with the new 366 homes approved and ground broken and no anticipated increase in revenue from any other building, residential or commercial. How about that Pot Factory?
Davenport – Page 9 12 New Connections
Shows about 3 years to give back the $2M surplus through sewer rate 50% cuts and some new debt is charted; an additional $281,845.00 by 2022.
New Debt Service in 2020 and 2022? What’s that? Maybe Davenport has the inside scoop but the citizens surely don’t know.
However, whatever that new debt is, it shouldn’t be counted unless the debts being paid off are also counted. $360,000.00 per year comes off in 2019, and $33,745.00 per year is paid in full in 2021. Looks like we are still ahead by $100,000.00 or so.
​
Davenport – page 10 25 New Connections
Shows 6 years to give the citizens back the $2M surplus through lower sewer rates. Again, new debt is calculated, but debts paid off are not.
City numbers, although slightly different, also show a 6 year period of time to give the citizens their $2 Million surplus back with lowered sewer rates. Davenport figures are only dealing with the $2M surplus and not the entire Utility Savings Account that starts with $6.3 Million. After the 6 years is subsidized by the recent surplus, there is still $4.3 Million in the Utility Savings Account.
​
Davenport – page 11 Some interesting disclaimers
This material was not produced by a research analyst
​
We (Davenport) make no representation or warranty with respect to the completeness of this material
​
Certain assumptions may have been made for modeling purposes to simplify the presentation and/or calculation of any projections or estimates and Davenport does not represent that any such assumptions will reflect actual future events.
​
The Oath of Office
​
Council members are sworn into office before they take their position. They take an oath before God and man to uphold the United States and Maryland Constitutions and they are therefore expected to follow their own Charter. It is up to the people to keep them accountable. This year an Open Meetings Act complaint and lawsuit was filed regarding closed meetings of the Taneytown City council. The Open Meetings Act is a State law designed to keep government business transparent so the people can participate in the business of and watch the debate of the officials they elected to represent them. Go to the following link to read the fair coverage (unusual but not a bad summary) of the pending lawsuit: http://www.carrollcountytimes.com/news/government/ph-cc-taneytown-open-meetings-act-20160908-story.html
​
​
Charter Amendment. The Charter Amendment that was passed by the City Council is so grossly unconstitutional that the law was taken to referendum by the citizens.
The Charter Amendment disenfranchises citizens by giving the Mayor and majority of the Council the power to remove from office only the minority representatives the citizens voted into office. Once removed, guess who fills the vacant seat? The Council, NOT the people.
The citizens won that petition, but fell shy by about 100 votes from winning the question at the special election ballot on November 15th, just one week after the Presidential election.
By the way, the Mayor and Council with a 4 to 1 vote, recently replaced a vacancy that was left on the Council due to the resignation of Councilman Zambetti.
Here is a clue as to what the Council will do given the power to remove fellow council members: In the last most recent election, Rogerson who ran on a platform to lower water/sewer rates was the next highest vote-getter, followed by Ebaugh, who lost his seat. Did the Mayor and Council fill the vacancy with the People's Choice - Rogerson? NO. After the Mayor announced he would recommend the next highest vote-getter, he reneged. The Mayor and Council filled the vacancy with their former colleague rather than the People's Choice with a 4 - 1 vote.
​
​
​
​
​
​
The Mayor and Council of Taneytown owe the citizens an apology! Time and again the Council, which violated the State's Open Meetings Act, describes the violations as "not willful" and "minor technicalities."
Two of the violations are at the very heart of the Law. Still they claim they did not "willfully" neglect to notify citizens of an open meeting required to precede a closed meeting, nor to write minutes of the alleged open meeting for approval and public record.
Willful and technical or not, without these two actions taking place, the public is left in the dark; deprived of their right to observe the business of the council and hold their representatives accountable.
Perhaps Council did not understand the Open Meetings Act, although McCarron, Foster and Zambetti took the Open Meetings Act Course through the University of Maryland's Academy of Excellence and Wantz stated he had read the Act on line. Whether they realized they broke the Open Meetings Act or not in June 2016, they must have reviewed the law and recognized their errors when accused of the specific violations.
Certainly the City Manager, Mayor and Attorney Gullo each having over 30 years dealing with this State Law recognized the Act had been violated. Some testified under oath that notice of an open meeting was not sent out nor minutes taken; both violations of the Open Meetings Act. Given the deficiencies noted in the lawsuit, they should have reviewed the Record of Closed Meeting to see it was incomplete and did not line up with the law. They should have seen the Mayor was not marked present, if he really was there; Foster's vote to close the meeting wasn’t recorded; and no vote or time noted for adjournment.
Why did they not simply admit they had broken the law and avoid the cost of a lawsuit? Under oath, Wantz, Zambetti, Vigliotti and Foster stated there was NO open meeting held on June 22, 2016, so why did they choose to squander the taxpayers'money? Willful or not, these elected officials supported by Mayor McCarron, City Manager Heine and City Attorney Gullo, chose to spend time and tax dollars defending a lost cause.
The Council should have admitted they violated the state law (which they testified they had) apologize, and assure the citizens it would not happen again.
This citizen, for one, is waiting for an apology!
Rhonda Bean Taneytown