Once again the Honorable Judge Timothy J. Grendell dispenses another guest editorial filled with the lies, misrepresentations and half-truths of which he falsely accuses the opposition.
The judge says that he does “not respond well to threats” and feels he is being disrespected.
Nobody has issued any threats, unless the judge feels that a citizen exercising the one and only disciplinary avenue available to be a threat.
And perhaps he considers his constituents holding him accountable to be disrespectful.
The judge implies the door has always been open for thoughtful discussion, but the opposition prefers to “howl like coyotes” from the outside.
This is pure misrepresentation.
There was never any attempt or intention to engage the community about his plans for the park. The new bylaws were proposed at the June 10, 2014, board meeting and passed at the following meeting, with little publicity.
It was only after residents gradually became aware of the bylaw change with its extensive list of “recreational activities,” including logging, gas and oil drilling, and motorized vehicle use did the real inquiries ensue. As soon as they did, the board and the judge began their stonewalling.
And, despite what any of them might say about intentions, as of this date, those activities are still in the bylaws. That’s a fact.
At the Aug. 12 budget commission meeting, Mr. Hitchcock noted the park’s budget for construction projects was historically small and was told that, until the residents were surveyed about what they wanted in the parks, the construction budget had been reduced.
But this statement was disingenuous from the start.
The list of activities passed at the July 8 park board meeting made very clear what intentions were before anyone in the county was asked by way of a survey what they desired.
Actually, new facilities had already been installed before the new bylaws were even passed, some in violation of contractual obligations.
In fact, almost $50,000 was spent on the Bass Lake “amenities” and they have all been ordered removed — $50,000 of taxpayer money wasted. This is fact.
Such incompetence is inexcusable and is not the kind of careless mistake that would have been made by the previous park administration.
The judge continues to claim that previous administrations “wasted” taxpayer money, which is another distortion. What the judge actually means is that he did not approve of the plans previous boards had for the parks, so he considers them a waste.
The judge disparages a previous board for seeking the renewal of a park levy. What he conveniently leaves out is the fact they had the opportunity to renew two levies, but let one expire instead, since they deemed the funds unnecessary for the plans included in their six-year projection.
So ask yourself, who is really distorting the truth?
And the judge persists in the fiction that he is not involved in the park’s management, that he’s much too busy. But again, ask yourself, why is he the “point man” on every rebuttal to demands for transparency? Why haven’t we heard from Mrs. Shumway, the board president, or Mr. Mucci, the vice-president?
Why does the judge feel compelled to spend thousands of dollars from the probate court’s funds to defend the actions of the park board? Why isn’t the park board spending its own money, using its own words?
The judge seems oblivious to the way his actions belie his statements. And he presumably thinks we are equally oblivious. He is mistaken.
The judge’s ad claimed no programs had been cut, but in his editorial he backpedals on cutting the Shutterbugs photography club, an approved park program for 10 years.
He further suggests using influence he claims not to have. On no fewer than three occasions the judge reminds us that he will be around for the next six years, by virtue of his unopposed “victory” at the polls.
When it comes to the parks, that should be a sobering thought, because in Ohio law there is only one public body with any authority to discipline judges and that is the Ohio Supreme Court, and only in response to the filing of judicial grievances.
It may be interesting for readers to note that a few of us who are at the forefront of this protest were graced with an “advanced screening” of the judges editorial in the form of our own personally signed letters on the probate court’s stationery, sent to our homes. It’s not hard to imagine what the judge’s intention was in doing so.
The judge apparently does not realize how his treatment of the opposition reveals his dismissive opinion of all Geauga County voters. We can all expect more of the judge’s arrogance and disdain after his “coronation” into a new six-year term.
Being a relatively recent arrival to the bench, the judge seems incapable of separating his judicial role from his political life.
Festa lives in Russell Township.