OPC Board Revises Governing Agreement
The new Interlocal Agreement for the Older Persons' Commission would not require Rochester, Rochester Hills or Oakland Township to approve the annual budget.
Photos
Pdfs
The board that governs the Older Persons' Commission is asking the three communities that formed it for input on some changes they have made to the Interlocal Agreement that controls the senior center.
Among other changes, under the revised agreement the OPC would have to submit its budget each year to Rochester Hills, Rochester and Oakland Township — but would not need those communities' approval in order to operate.
The revisions follow ongoing debate in Rochester over the 2012 budget, which the Rochester City Council opted not to approve last fall after citing concerns about increases in payments and benefits. That City Council still has not approved the budget.
The new agreement
Most of the changes in the revised agreement are technical in nature, said Jack Dalton, the OPC board's chairman, as the agreement has only been revised twice since its creation 29 years ago.
Under the revised agreement, director Marye Miller's title would be changed to "Executive Director." The official address would be changed to 650 Letica Drive.
But, also under the revised agreement, there are changes in the OPC's budget approval procedure: the OPC board would still have to submit its budget to Rochester, Rochester Hills and Oakland Township, but those bodies would not need to approve the budget in order for the OPC to operate.
Under the revised agreement, the annual budget "shall be submitted to the clerks of each of the parties hereto by August 1 of each year." This clause has been struck from the agreement: "The governing bodies of each of the parties hereto shall review and either approve as presented or as modified, an identical budget, no later than October 1 of each year."
In addition, the revised agreement strikes language requiring that member communities give a 90-day written notice before terminating their membership in the OPC and states that "remaining parties may agree to continue the Commission" and "the terminating party's notice shall not cause a dissolution of the Commission."
The revised agreement also states that a majority of board members — and not a quorum of members — is needed to pass any motion.
The full outline of the changes is attached in a PDF file to this story.
Rochester Hills reacts
On Monday night, Dalton, a Rochester Hills resident, along with councilmember Ravi Yalamanchi, a member of the OPC governing board, presented the revised agreement to the Rochester Hills City Council.
Dalton said the revisions would allow the OPC to "operate more effectively."
Yalamanchi said the OPC is an independent corporate entity and that the governing should stay with the governing body.
Councilmembers mostly agreed with the revisions and took turns praising the OPC and its director, Miller, who was in the audience.
"I've reviewed the suggested changes and have no problem with them. The OPC would not exist without Marye Miller," said Council President Greg Hooper. "She has done an outstanding job representing the OPC ... I wish her to continue as long as she would; I stand behind her."
Councilmember Michael Webber, who is vice-chairman of the OPC Board, echoed Hooper's comments.
"All three communities are going to receive this presentation; it takes all three communities to approve the changes," Webber said. "A lot of the changes are technical in nature and hopefully will be seen as such in the greater Rochester community."
Yalamanchi said the board attempted to get all three communities together, which is difficult with everyone's busy schedules. So instead they are approaching each community separately. Tonight they will present to the Oakland Township Board; on Monday he said they plan to present to Rochester City Council.
Cathy Daldin, a Rochester City Councilmember, said Tuesday afternoon that "never in a million years" would she approve the changes in the interlocal agreement.
"I absolutely, positively in no way, shape or form will not take away the oversight of this board," Daldin said. "Those are taxpayer dollars. If you take away the oversight, the OPC board could do whatever it wants."
Back in Rochester Hills, councilmember James Rosen also cautioned against losing the "hammer" that would get all three communities to cooperate in governing the OPC. He said he didn't view the OPC as independent — he said it is part of the elected officials' responsibility to govern it; he said he wanted to hear more conversation.
The Rochester Hills City Council will vote on the revised agreement at a future meeting.
lisa
6:13 pm on Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Yes! OPC annual budget should be approved and governed by the elected officials.
OPC should have to reply to FOIA and offer voters transparency especially with donations and where they go!
The problem here is this rewrite of the ILA is how OPC has been operating and when a few people and Rochester Council tried to hold them accountable for some illegal actions they got busy to re-write the rules.
OPC has done whatever it wanted to do or the way M Miller wanted now with approval OPC could have the amended rules to back them up!
Sam
9:08 pm on Monday, June 11, 2012
Wrong!!
It all started when Rochester decided to enforcfe dictatorship and suddenly they don't want a democratic system. The budget was approved by majority (including two reps from Rochester) and suddenly they decided they want to have more representation on the board and the rest of the BS that you are not mentioning on your posts here......same B,S different day......Sorry, we are still a democratic country regardless of what council and few of their friends want us to believe. Why don't you mention that Daldinher business partner were the ones that accused OPC of wrong doing with the "Leisure Travel"...What are the chances. Daldin and her partner have a travel agency. DAH!!!!
mac
10:11 am on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Agreed - as taxpayers we voted for the facility to be built and what tax increases to fund it. If the OPC decides it needs additional funds would we just have to pay? I think the three communities should oversee the OPC. The OPC is not an independent self owned company that spends its own money; they spend our tax dollars.
Sam
9:10 pm on Monday, June 11, 2012
OPC's 2012 budget was $100,000 less than 2011's budget......Check your facts before you open you mouth
Christopher
11:18 am on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
If we have no ability to approve how they spend our money, we should stop giving them money.
Sam
9:11 pm on Monday, June 11, 2012
I agree.
Bye
Leez
9:48 pm on Friday, September 14, 2012
I agree fully with Christopher. We are the taxpayers, and we have the right to say how much and how OPC is to spend our money. Furthermore, I think we should vote for Conscientious people like Patricia Kane to lead the OPC board. It's nice to know there is still people like Cathy Daldin in the city council, who really represents our tax payers, and please Mr. James Rosen, stand up aganist wasteful spending and say no to the revised agreement. People in these three communities will remember who really represent them responsibly when it comes to election time.
Rich
1:50 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
The revised agreement states the OPC governing board (which consists of residents from each of the three communities appointed by their respective city councils) would approve the budget and spending, not the city councils themselves. So the three communities do over see the spending and will continue to if the revised plan is excepted.
Rich
2:03 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
This article is misleading because it does not mention that the budget/spending would be approved by the governing board, which is made up of appointed residents from the three communities. The revised charter does not propose removing the approval of the local communities.
Patricia Kane
4:31 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
What governing Board? You mean the one that's whatever Rochester Hills and Oak. Twp. want without discussion or compromise?
I agree the article is misleading. Mr. Hooper has no idea what is happeing at the OPC or how money is allocated and expensed. If he did, we would not have seen the staged political show at the Rochester Hills City Council Mtg.on Monday night.
That was done for the benefit of the "uninformed".
Sam
9:16 pm on Monday, June 11, 2012
Rochester council has been upset since Avon township became City of Rochester Hills, because they can't manipulate and dictate the affairs of Rochester Hills any more........ Sorry Rochester council. I love democracy
Patricia Kane
4:16 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Another question to ask is what community wrote the changes? Where did the changes originate? Why is the voting changed? Interesting changes proposed indeed--and all this in the face of the OPC and Board not responding to questions, and making it impossible to get any answers on anything, including Leisure Travel. Turns out the Chairperson, Director and a Board Member lied to the public at the April 2012 OPC Board Mtg. Then did a 180 at the May Mtg..all of a sudden the Director did take over Leisure Travel, ran it for awhile, brought it to the OPC and now it is a division of the the OPC. Still no answers on "free slots", paid salaries and paid stipends of family members and OPC employees over the years. But they purchase day old food to serve our seniors, and can find money in the budget for raises to administration and to cover the salary of the Director on her most recent 13 day tour of S. Africa....what a disservice.
Sam
9:19 pm on Monday, June 11, 2012
You know everything Pat, how come you didn't mention that the board appointed a committe and yes Rochester was involved as well as Rochester Hills and Oakland Township.........better luck next time
Terry
11:07 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
All can say it that the OPC is just lucky they passed their renewal fundng last year. With the huge increases in pay and now an audit of their travel practices (the Executive Director and at least one Board Member travel like Hilary Clinton), voters may not be so generous.
This new "proposed agreement" is laughable. They didn't like Rochester City Council looking at their budget, so they propose new rules that wouldn't let them. Why waste the time to propose something that has no chance of passing? Nor should it.
Sam
9:21 pm on Monday, June 11, 2012
see my reply to Pat's comment for enlightment.
Patricia Kane
7:17 am on Thursday, May 10, 2012
The Board doesn't govern--Rochester Hills does and the Director. And now they propose a new title for the Director, "Executive Director", who thought that up? I bet with that comes another 10-15% increase in the benefit package and perhaps even more exotic and over seas travel while still being paid a salary to go to even more countries with a handful of financially able seniors as the "escort". And for the record, the OPC Board would not allow the City of Rochester to have the books looked at at no cost to the OPC...No transparency at the OPC, none, no way, uh uh, ...The Board and he administration has forgotten they are a 501c3 and with that comes more than the cursory minimal requirements for reporting by a CPA--this tax funded entity is not independent, and is accountable to the public. In the best interest of the seniors it serves and in the best use of funds, there needs to be some changes in practice. They know it, they (the boss) doesn't want to do it, so viola, they pull a new ILA out of their hats just like magic...instead of fixing things, they are more concerned about a new title, new authority and less over site.
lynda
9:04 am on Thursday, May 10, 2012
Hate, anger, jealousy, obsessing...
Patricia Kane
12:24 pm on Thursday, May 10, 2012
No Lynda, just not going to be bullied into handing over monies to a 501c3 that doesn't want to be accountable, thats all. And I am also, going to question practices too long entrenched that possibly need to be changed by the Board. Taxpayers want and need to be informed. I suppose if you see no problem paying administration a salary to travel 13 days to S. Africa, do tell, how does that help our seniors locally? Where does the money come from? If there is that much money, more food would be nice and perhaps fresh vegetables and fruit for tour seniors, or maybe they could waive the $1.00 for people to sit in the lobby and knit or decrease some of the art classes. Since they won't respond, and they won't open the books, how do we know what is going on? In April 2012, at the OPC Board Mtg. they denied any relationship by the Director or OPC with Leisure Travel. At the May 2012 OPC Board Mtg. all of a sudden the Director took over Leisure Travel, ran it, brought it to the OPC and now it is is a division of the OPC...that is a 180 if ever. So the OPC is creating their own mess.
Sam
9:22 pm on Monday, June 11, 2012
Its called democracy....bulying is what rochester council is doing. Get your facts right
Judy Watson
2:15 pm on Tuesday, May 29, 2012
To Patricia Kane:
What is your problem??? Haven't gotten your 15 minutes of fame yet? How many trips have you gone on through the OPC??? Do you know what is required of the escort and how much the escort does for the seniors - financially able or not, they still need direction. I have been on these trips and the escort is expected to be available 24/7 and she/he is!!! Would you work 24/7 and not expect something in return? Have you ever eaten a meal at OPC?? Have you ever spent one day at the OPC to see what goes on? Are you aware that Ms. Miller has come in under budget several times during her 39 years at OPC. Have you ever written a grant??? Have you ever been successful in getting thousands of dollars in donations to assist the senior community? Why don't you get over yourself and do something positive for the community. I'm not sure why you have made this your personal crusade, but I can only asume that you have an axe to grind with Marye Miller. You will probably continue to search for "wrong doing", but I doubt that you will ever succeed. How much is this vendetta costing Rochester taxpayers?
Judy
doug
12:21 am on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Judy
You are obviously a big supporter of the OPC and their Director, which is fine. It is a good organization that has a great history. As an outsider to the OPC, but someone familiar with Boards and budgets, it appears to me that their are a number of fair questions and concerns that should be addressed.
The OPC Board appears to close to the organization they are chartered to govern. That is a common problem with Boards. It is not surprising the Rochester City Council has questions. The lack of timely information is worrisome. Hopefully, the decision by the OPC Board to cooperate with the audit requested by Rochester will satisfy any open issues and allow everyone to move forward.
Patricia Kane
7:52 pm on Thursday, May 31, 2012
To Judy Watson, The Director should have a job description on file.This is an administrative position-writing grants & fund raising are normal job duties for 501c3.Not extraordinary feats- I have never once said anything derogatory or negative about meals, swim, exercise, cards, arts and craft etc.so, chill out and get a grip.The Director states in 2009 that she can't get out of her office (in the minutes) she has so much paper work to do, she can't even get to the kitchen..but then,13 days to travel.It appears you have blurred the line between necessary, required and "entitled". If the seniors want to hire her personally for their private vacation, let them.This is no ones responsibility & the trips are more expensive than through other tour companies that do this for seniors.These trips are unaffordable for the majority of the seniors using the OPC, so, it caters to a few financially able seniors If they can trek the Rain Forest, do tell, why does the Director have to be there again when guides are already assigned? Guides are assigned from the time they get off the plane & guides are available 24/7 on all the cruises, so again why? If your have choices to golf, take a boat ride, shop, take in the sites, etc. again, the Director is not needed.It's a vacation.Under budget only several times in 39 years is good, but the expectation in any sector is, should be more.They are now purchasing day old fruits & vegetables (OPC per the Director) to save money.
Judy Watson
6:03 pm on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Doug,
Do you honestly believe that even if there is a positive result from the audit ordered by the City Council that anything will really move forward? Considering Ms. Kane's diatribe at last night's city council meeting it is obvious that she will continue ad infinitum in her attempt to denigrate Mrs. Miller and for that matter Councilwoman Russell. Someone needs to stand up for the OPC and its supporters, and it is obvious from reading most of the Patch comments that Ms. Kane has her posse of malcontents who will continue to stir things up with half truths, malicious attacks on two people of great integrity and a Board that has the backing of two municipalities and many of the citizens of all three. You are aware I'm sure that it is the OPC board and not the Rochester City Council that has the authority to set policy for the OPC? One can only wonder what Ms. Kane's true motives are behind her unending attempts to bring about the downfall of the OPC???
lynda
9:29 pm on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Judy,
Thank you, finally a voice of reason and sanity.
Patricia Kane
8:12 pm on Thursday, May 31, 2012
Oh Judy, I have no posse--like the new name calling though.So how do you refer to yourself and your little group" Malcontents II ? So any American, taxpayer or resident that questions the OPC is a "malcontent"- last time I looked, my flag in still the Stars and Stripes. Perhaps, this very behavior such as yours and what seniors have written & called about at the OPC is a reason they stated as to why they can't ask questions. Intimidated. I think the opinion on the budget from the AG, for those that can't read the Act themselves, will be favorable or the legislation has to be changed. When you can't get answers and the Board is not transparent and neither is the OPC, you do what you have to to protect the seniors and the status. Look, for 39 years not even a conflict of interest or ethics signed. An while you're at it look at the CCAT, a very telling document. And stop your LIES, I am not bringing down the downfall of the OPC-& your motives with name calling is for what purpose? You haven't addressed one of the problems or questions. If you haven't gotten a copy of the letters from Ms. Russell yet, maybe I could ask the Patch to publish them..truth and fact always prevail. The letter being circulated through Stan and others is shameful and disgraceful. But, I am a malcontent and you are ?????????
Judy Watson
9:41 pm on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Lynda,
You're welcome.
doug
11:00 pm on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Judy
I do believe that good information can clear alot of the misconceptions and misinformation. I disagree with your statement about the Rochester City Council not having the right to oversee the OPC budget. The Governing Board is appointed by the three communites and all three of them have the responsibility to make sure they are doing there job. Good Governance requires accountability. That is true in any organization. The OPC is accountable to its Board, the Board is accountable to the three communites leadership and they (the leadership) are accountable to the voters.
lynda
12:51 am on Thursday, May 31, 2012
How many voters want the OPC to meet it's demise?
Daryl Patrishkoff
7:14 am on Thursday, May 31, 2012
Lynda,
We do not want the OPC to go away; we want them to be fiscally responsible with a sustainable future. They receive funds from our tax dollars and need to be accountable to us to prove they add value at a reasonable cost. Just because we want them to be a viable organization does not mean we want them to go away. We want them to run their budgets how we run our personal and business budgets, spend only what you can afford.
My wife and I were going to join the OPC to use the exercise facilities and then expand into other services they offer. We expected them to be a lower cost than the private sector since we are paying tax dollars to subsidize their expenses. We were shocked that they were far more expensive and not accessible during evening hours and on weekends. This is before they give large raises to the Director and adding step increases to the employees with pensions. They are building an uncompetitive expensive unsustainable organization we taxpayers will be on the hook to pay for.
Where is the outrage that we are charging our seniors who are on fixed income an uncompetitive rate for a service that the private sector beats every day with more access to the facility?
I applaud Rochester in their stand to not sign up for this current and future economic mess. That is what we should expect from our government, be good stewards with our tax dollars.
Judy Watson
8:30 pm on Thursday, May 31, 2012
Pat,
My 586 number is none of your business! I reside in Rochester Hills and that's all you need to know. I have every right to support a cause in which I truly believe, as well as its board and its director. The City Council has authority over the budget, not the programs. You now seem intent on attacking the programs, thus your vendetta continues. Unless you have traveled with the OPC, you have no knowledge of what the seniors need and neither does the City Council, but that seems to be your latest "cause". Outsourcing to another travel agency will not provide a positive and rewarding travel experience for the seniors. Their needs and expectations are not the same as the general population, thus having an escort, be it Ms. Miller or someone else from the OPC, is positive and worthwhile. That's what the seniors want and that's why they choose the OPC travel program. Any negative comments re: the travel program are coming from people who have NEVER used it. Try it sometime, it might change your viewpoint!
Patricia Kane
7:30 am on Thursday, May 31, 2012
CCAT Document-scores averaged 183.28 over the 38 categories--
Failing score. It scores between 300-210. 210 the lowest. Most score around 270-255. The score was 183.28 The document speaks for it's self. The Board did not bring this forward nor was the public informed. Next, the letters from Council Member Russell speaks for itself. A diatribe of name calling, misinformation and speaking of "evil" but she could not define the "evil". Not once did I refer to anyone or anything as evil, Napoleonic, etc. and no where did I restrict or dissuade anyone from exercising their rights as a taxpayer and resident to ask questions. NO ONE IS CLOSING THE OPC. Malcontents are the only ones spreading this to frighten people.
The "Malcontents" who want "business as usual" with a Board that is not open and governing are the Judy Watson's of the world. Sorry Judy, but your 586 XXX XXXX number and e-mail were al over the paper of the other Malcontent from RH that threatened our City with recall of our Mayor and doesn't live or vote here--all because the OPC and Board will not answer questions. Just because a Board sets policy does not make that policy economically correct for the times, the people it serves or
the community as a whole. Where is the transparency?
Look at the CCAT--210 is the lowest score, the average score was 183---I think that speaks for itself.
Sam
12:10 am on Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Pa,t you think I waste my time watching the BS at rochester council meetings. You think too mujch of yourself and the stupidity of the mayor and the mindless council members who follow and agree with whatever bikson says like little lost puppies. No thank you. I have better things to do than to watch non-sense coming from rochester council and the other few wanna be politicians like you.
laurie puscas
9:00 am on Thursday, May 31, 2012
Those who are logical and care about cause and effect will look at the OPC situation and recognize that something is very wrong. The poorly aportioned budget directly hurts the seniors using the OPC. THe cost of using the OPC is going to be more and more. This is counterintuitive to the purpose of the OPC.
Those who choose to be emotional and blindly defend the leadership of the OPC and most of the OPC board are no different than those who stood behind Kwame Kilpatarick. Either they are ignorant of the situation or they have something to personally gain.
Sam
9:41 pm on Monday, June 11, 2012
Oh sure. I recognizde what's wrong from the begining and its not the OPC Director. Its the misinformation that rochester council is putting out there to justify their witch hunt.
doug
11:27 pm on Thursday, May 31, 2012
Alot has been said about the costs and budget at the OPC. I have never used the facility, but have had at least three friends tell me that it was cheaper to go outside to a place like LifeTime Fitness. That just didnt make sense, considering that it is taxpayer subsidized.
I went to the website and couldnt find a price list for services. That would be helpful information as well as the history of those individual rates (not the budget). Maybe the Patch can publish that and put the issue to bed. Good information will eliminate a lot of the debate.
Daryl Patrishkoff
6:13 am on Friday, June 1, 2012
Doug,
A while back on a post about the OPC I brought in the data about comparing Lifetime Fitness to the OPC. My wife and I were both looking to join a facility that would have fitness equipment along with swimming pool access and other activities we desire in the future.
The OPC is subsidized by taxpayers and does not pay any taxes. On the other hand the private sector does not enjoy tax subsidies and contributes significant tax payments.
Here is the pricing from the OPC and Lifetime Fitness from their websites.
Lifetime Fitness facility access is 24 hours per day 7 days per week 265 days per year. For my wife and I to join we would pay $111.90 per month with a 30 day notice on cancellation. This fee is complete access to the facility and the ability to pay for additional custom individual services.
OPC facility access is M-F 6:30 am to 8:45 pm, Saturday 7:00 am to 11:45 am and closed on Sunday. They are also closed 22 days throughout the year due to holidays. For my wife and I to join and have the exercise and swimming pool access we would pay $158 per month for the “All Access Pass”. This fee is complete access to the facility and the ability to pay for additional custom individual services.
The OPC would charge us $46.10 (41%) more per month for access to similar services, but many hours and days less of access to the facility.
Where is the outrage that we are over charging our seniors for these services which is subsidized by our tax dollars?
c daldin
10:59 am on Monday, June 4, 2012
Doug: You touched on something I discovered BEFORE the budget issue started. I believe that people that love the OPC find it hard to believe that changes need to be made. Where is the outrage? This has nothing to do with the how wonderful the that the OPC is, this has to do with an open and transparent leadership. When the OPC started times were different. The OPC now has a 3 million dollar budget supported by taxpayers, donations, grants and fundraising. Some of the funding sources have very strict IRS and legal guidlines. Changes have to be made to ensure that the OPC will continue to thrive and survive for the seniors. An honest and open discussion has to be had and people have to stop accusing those who ask questions of trying to shut it down or destroy it.
lynda
10:01 pm on Monday, June 11, 2012
GO SAM !!! The lies and distorted accusations of Rochester City Council and Patricia Kane, et al, need to be exposed for what they are. Where is their "transparency"?
Patricia Kane
6:57 am on Tuesday, June 12, 2012
There are no lies. Your friend 'Sam" got so angry watching the Rochester City Council Mtg last night that she, I mean he, posted 8 times in less than 1 hour.
No lies by the Rochester City Council or myself. Transparency? I post my full name, have the information from other companies and documents are right from the OPC web or the OPC minutes. I have been very transparent. I think "Sam" and yourself are upset because the Ccat has been made public (transparency) and the OPC buried it.
The cost of that document was not $300.00--it took about 6 months, and two people driving from Ann Arbor multiple times, focus groups and interviews to complete this with a failing and I mean failing grade to the leadership and governance of the OPC.
Transparency is sorely needed throughout the OPC. Where is it Lynda?
Daryl Patrishkoff
8:25 am on Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Patricia,
I see a trend, the people that post here in assumed names that show nothing about themselves put out the biggest attacks and bullying. The folks that use their real name are standing up and having a fact based discussion and asking for transparency.
I suspect they are either afraid to speak up with their real name, or, they are just on a hidden agenda and trying to confuse the facts with meaningless noise. It would be nice if they followed the rules of the Patch and used their real names. We still have free speech in America, what are they afraid of?
Sam
12:04 am on Wednesday, June 13, 2012
C'mon Lynda, I bet they can't even spell transparency......
lynda
10:39 am on Tuesday, June 12, 2012
I am a resident in the city of Rochester and do not agree with the city council and especially the mayor. I believe they are on a "witch hunt" with intent to gain control of the OPC. I use my real name, and I have no hidden agenda.
Sam
12:23 am on Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Daryl,
Just because I'm voicing my opinion against you doesn't mean I'm not using my real name. Obviously you think so because I disagree with you and you are trying to discredit my point of view. Stop smoke screening and address the comments or keep quiet.
c daldin
3:30 pm on Thursday, June 21, 2012
Dear Sam:
I must address your comments on my asking questions and concerns regarding the OPC travel. My questions and concerns were first properly addressed at an OPC board meeting. Those concerns then came in fromt of the council. The fact that I own a travel agency has nothing to do with my asking questions. I have no issue with the OPC having a travel club similar to what most seniors centers have. My concerns are that board members are paid to take trips and then vote on a budget with travel. I also have concerns with the position of ED position traveling and getting paid a salary that comes from taxpayers. Again my asking questions and voicing concerns has NOTHING to do with what I do for a living. I have stated numerous times my business can never provide the travel services for the OPC. We are not that kind of an agency. If you are going to accuse me of something I prefer you do it in person and give me the opportunity to respond. I do not agree with your stand on the OPC but respect your right to comment and would never insult you personally.
Sam
9:18 pm on Monday, June 25, 2012
C Daldin,
What makes you think I would believe anything you say or do after watching you and the rest of the rochester council lie, twist the facts, use smoke screen tactics, act rude toward the OPC Director, Rochester Hills Council and OPC Governing Board while witch hunting.
c daldin
10:11 pm on Monday, June 25, 2012
sam: I rest my case your response says it all. Thank you and have a nice day.
Patricia Kane
7:05 am on Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Sam, can you verify that the CCAT was just over $50,000.00 ? I heard it was $55,000, but getting the information from the OPC is very expensive.
After hearing more last night on information rec'd from the OPC, I wonder if it was ever fully disclosed, discussed and given to the governing Board. At this time from the information available from the OPC, it doesn't appear like that ever happened.