In October of last year I published this post; http://votedixon.com/2015/10/29/woodcliff-v-whitehall-what-lies-beneath/ discussing the City of Whitehall’s relationship with the Woodcliff area in Whitehall. In that post I mentioned how the city was spending around $25,000 a month for legal fees related to their pusuit of the land at Woodcliff, as mentioned in this post; http://votedixon.com/2015/10/30/woodcliff-v-whitehall-part-two-the-pirates-of-whitehall/.

I recently received the copies of the emails related to that expense and so wanted to share them here. This file contains the emails between Mayor Maggard and Auditor Miller which Mr. Miller claims are costing the city $25-$30 thousand dollars a month per charge. They also write about writing legislation to get a supplemental appropriation to pay for these. Thay also make an assumption of getting it approved, as if that is not the council’s prerogative, to approve or not approve. It also suggests they know who is on their side (council) and that there will be no fight because of the nature of their relationship. (Team members/buddies/colleagues/friends) I’ve been there when these supplemental appropriations come up, often with generic titles for their usage, that which I’ve rarely ever heard the council question and demand understanding and paperwork, ala the Manor House at Woodcliff. All the council members, during the shit storm from the community, the press and the historical society when it was torn down, all claimed they’d never heard anything about this happening and I’m certain then that the money appropriated for its demolition was in one of these generically opaque appropriation legislations. I’d asked Leslie LaCorte about these pieces of legislation which contained generalized sums of money and she said they really didn’t inquire about them and simply trusted those bringing forth the legislation that they were doing above-board things with the money but that deeper accounts of the activities and the spending were not proffered. Which again shows how foolish and/or biased council can be in not adhering to the separate branches of government set up so that no one branch has too much power. I say these people are untrustworthy and so every action they take, every piece of legislation they ask council to approve must be questioned and investigated, which they really don’t.

Their bias for their friends over the people has been apparent for sometime now and this is really just another indicator of that. As Dan Miller himself writes in the email, “I would like to get that on tonight’s agenda so I can get that approved…”, not ‘hope to get that approved’ or ‘try to get that approved’, an assumption on his part that it WILL be approved by a separate branch of the government, one whose priority and obligation are to the citizens themselves, first and foremost. Here then is the link to the emails;

SKMBT_C55415110510300