The Westfield Washington Township board on Tuesday voted 2-1 to cancel the parks bond series to acquire land for open green space and natural areas within the township. Board members David Gill and Erica Strahm voted against the bond and land acquisition, while board member Danyele Easterhaus voted in favor of both.
This decision comes after the board unanimously approved two real estate purchase agreements on Dec. 20 pending the outcome of the petition drive to approve the bonds.
Tolan
“I’m confused by this odd move to rescind the bonds,” said Westfield Washington Township Trustee Danielle Carey Tolan. “It’s disappointing that the will of the people cannot be heard and acted upon through the democratic process set forth through the remonstrance.”
The Westfield Washington Township board voted 2-0 on Dec. 12 to move forward to petition in favor of the $15 million park bond series after a remonstrance against the bond was filed. The bonds would have provided funding for land acquisition to preserve open spaces and natural areas, specifically near MacGregor Park, as land became available for sale. The 30-day period in which petitions in favor of or against the proposed park bond was set to begin Jan. 16.
“I’m frustrated by the vote and outcome of today’s meeting that ends this process for the public to have their voice heard and the project to acquire land at this time,” said Tolan. “Despite this setback, I look forward to continuing the vision set forth in the township’s strategic plan and carrying out the desires of the residents of Westfield Washington Township.”
More than 40 people attended the board meeting where board member Easterhaus invited them to share their opinions on board member David Gill’s motion to rescind the bond. A total of 11 people spoke, with seven people sharing opinions in favor of continuing the petition drive and four people opposed.
The last information fair scheduled for today has been canceled. The Westfield Washington Township Trustee’s Office thanks residents for their interest and participation in the process.
The time for the public to get information was before the public hearings in October when some of the public spoke when little to no information was available and they asked for information and for the Board to slow the process down. Within 10 minutes of the public hearing, Easterhaus and Southerland voted for and Gill voted against the Bond resolutions; not much time to consider the public comments or public requests. The Trustee’s timeline was to sell bonds and commit the Township to debt before year end 2018. So when a remonstrance group (not formally organized, just a few concerned grassroots residents) was successful in slowing down the process by expending their time and effort to collect nearly 625 signatures opposed to the bond – that is 625 people weighing in on the issue –Easterhaus & Southerland voted to go into a signing petition hoping to continue the bond and avoiding the second option of dropping the bond and reconsidering or developing a better plan which would have put the vote in the hands of the new Board–the one that withdrew the petition. The remonstrance group and now the new Board have wrongly been accused of not wanting to hear from the public when exactly the opposite has been true since this “bond issue” was sprung on the public with an October 1 notice which followed the Trustee, Easterhaus & Southerland evidently spending and planning outside of Board meetings. Approval to pursue a bond was not Board approved, hiring O.W. Krohn and the bond attorney were not Board approved, “specified land” for purchase followed by appraisals was not Board approved. The Trustee pursued and acted without full Board approval but perhaps with the understanding Easterhaus & Southerland would approve after the fact; but clearly without open public meetings. Trustee should not be shocked, confused, or frustrated because everything the remonstrance group and the new Board have done is well within the law and should have been known or researched. Her shock and awe could be because she is not as versed in Indiana Code or SBOA Township guidelines as she should be, however, she has a Township attorney and other expert consultants. The Township is in a much better place since actions taken appear to contradict code and taxpayer monies were spent during the remonstrance period and stances were taken by Trustee, Easterhaus, Southerland and others which is not allowed under IC 6-1.1-20-10. Board. Welcome to the new Board and re-elected Trustee and here’s hoping right and accountable governance at the grassroots Township level prevails in 2019 because we ended 2018 with too many questionable actions and decisions done away from the public view.