It appears that Peninsula Township Supervisor Pete Correia has benefited financially from a Township Assessor decision that increased his Shipman Road property acreage from 19.22 to 20.65 acres. Thus, a property of more than 20 acres became “dividable” into more lots, and six lots resulted from this decision instead of four.
Apparently, neither the Township lawyer nor Mr. Correia feels that there is a conflict when Mr. Correia benefits from a decision by his (Mr. Correia’s) direct subordinate.
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Keep the Gazette Going.
AND the Township Board is not interested in dealing with this pretty obvious conflict of interest at all.
Who should be responsible for upholding the standards of Peninsula Township?
Who should care if there is an appearance of impropriety?
Who cares at all?
If you do, attend an upcoming Township Board Meeting and stand up for your beliefs.
(Editor’s Note: The Board meets the second Tuesday of every month.)
Anne Griffiths
Old Mission Peninsula
The next Board Meeting, at which this issue is scheduled to be heard, is this coming Monday, October 26th, at 12:30 PM
I have a question for Anne Griffith’s since she had brought this into a public forum. Do you have all of the facts regarding this “conflict”? As a casual observer, I can see how this could be quite alarming and by the way that you have stated things here, it looks to be some kind of abuse of power. However… I have a few questions for you. When did the land division take place and when did Mr. Correia come into his supervisor position? You seemed to have failed to mention either of these points. Are you completely ignorant of all of the facts, Mrs. Griffiths, or are you withholding this key information to slant the opinion of the reader? I looked it up out of curiosity and it was very interesting… Are you ignorant of the facts or do you have an agenda? Please respond and share.
“Correia benefits from a decision by his (Mr. Correia’s) direct subordinate.”
Again… Was Mr. Correia supervisor at the time of the land division? It would appear not, and this does not make the assesor his “direct subbordinate” if he was not the supervosor at the time. The statement by Anne Griffiths is completely false.
Again, Anne Griffiths, were you aware of this fact when you typed your letter to the editor and omitted it or just completely ignorant of this simple fact?
The floor is yours…