To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Editor’s Note: In the second of a series, OMP resident Todd Sanders asks the question, “What about the settlement?” Read on for his thoughts on the ongoing winery lawsuit and the October 2021 meeting at St. Joseph Church. And if you have something to say, write it up and send it to me, [email protected]. -jb
I appreciate all of the discussion and activity on my first post. As promised, this is the next in a series I will share. Everyone is always encouraged to share their perspectives and ask tough questions, as well. I hope that I have proven I’m not one to shy away.
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Donate and Keep the Gazette Going.
Let’s talk about this [supposed] settlement.
Many of you have seen and heard the WOMP camp mention a settlement that supposedly was on the table at the October 6, 2021, Board Meeting held at St. Joseph Church. There are plenty of opinions on the subject, ranging from a feverish crowd made more antagonistic by Protect the Peninsula agents to a smug and disinterested Board that thumbed its nose at a sweet deal from WOMP to bumbling administrators who were in over their heads and beyond.
I’ve done my best to peel back the hyperbole and find as objective facts as possible. I’ll keep the scene setting short.
- On September 13, 2021, Rob Manigold (then-Supervisor), Becky Chown (then-Clerk), and attorney Greg Meihn (then-Township attorney) attended what was to be the final settlement conference. This is the time the alleged settlement was agreed to.
- Manigold and Chown left at the end of the day when negotiations did not move forward. There was no agreement made, and it is alleged that Meihn inappropriately made a deal with the WOMP attorney (subject of an ongoing lawsuit). Check out Becky’s article here.
- On October 6, 2021, the Town Board held a meeting at St. Joseph Church. The Board was presented sealed copies of the settlement offer, on which they needed to vote to accept.
- There was a long period of public comment. The Board entered a closed session to discuss the proposal. Upon return, former Board Member Brad Bickle moved to reject the settlement proposal, and for the formation of a citizens’ committee to work with the wineries in a public process to end the lawsuit as a community decision. The Board unanimously rejected the proposed settlement in a vote that evening.
I struggle to find the much-touted underhanded maneuvers WOMP and its surrogates accuse the Board of. It is worth exploring as logically as possible.
Theory 1: The Board inappropriately backed out of a good deal.
Let us, for the sake of an exercise, assume the Board “is at fault” or inappropriately backed out of a good deal. They were caught up in “hubris” or “egos,” as some have suggested. They were “against wineries” or “against farming.” The “PTP shadow government” made them reject it. Even writing the above seems utterly illogical.
Nevertheless, there is one, simple, obvious failure of this theory; WOMP filed to HIDE the settlement offer. They don’t even talk about it. When their surrogates mention it, it is in baseless soundbites that quickly drift to the “well it could be true maybe” territory.
Theory 2: The settlement was a bad deal.
This theory was supported by the Board at the time, as evidenced by their unanimous rejection of the proposal. The term “all or nothing” was used to describe the proposal. What data and observations do we have to support this theory?
First, the Board had at least three members who BENEFITED from the wine industry; Manigold, Bickle, and Chown all sold grapes. They are either people of character performing their duties to the community, individuals who believe the settlement was too extreme, or those who enjoy punishing themselves.
Second, I bring back the most glaring; WOMP themselves are embarrassed to share the settlement offer. What is so detrimental that WOMP doesn’t want it to see the light of day?
Does it show they truly didn’t try to compromise? Does it show they only care about themselves and are not the community champions they portray themselves to be? Does it throw other farmers or future winery owners under the bus in exchange for their desires (one could argue ‘yes,’ as Amendment 201 was established to help meet the wineries’ desires, but put burdens on other farmers)? All are unknown because of their protective order.
Theory 3: The settlement was performative dinner theatre.
The last theory I’ll share is that the settlement was nothing at all. The wineries went all in on the big money promises by their legal team. The numbers are mind-boggling. The initial demand was for over $200 million. 200. Million. That type of number makes people do wild things. They were convinced that the “community won’t bear the brunt” … “insurance will cover it” … “the Township will settle for anything less.”
WOMP’s own attorney has shown a casual disrespect for the community in his words. “There’s lots of ways they could decide to pay this voluntarily before it gets to an assessment,” he said in a Record-Eagle story [read about that here. -jb] Sell off assets. Squeeze community funds. Count on insurance. Then the actions of the Township are called “performative” when they begin planning for the very things above?!?!
So here we are. I truly empathize with my community. We are all facing a serious financial hit. I know there have been sleepless nights worrying about hard decisions that may need to be made. That is a stark reality, not scare tactics, as some have said.
“Reach out!”
“Take the first step!”
My friends, our Township has and continues to. Many calls have gone unanswered.
-Todd Sanders, Old Mission Peninsula resident
Also Read…
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Although I want the wineries to share the “compromise” to the rest of us and have stated that to those that I know that are involved, I understand why they do not share this information at this time. It is because the case is still ongoing and there is no good that could come out for them by making this information public at this time. The first thing you and others would say is if that was good enough in 2021 why isn’t it good enough now.
Well a lot has happened since 2021 and as far as I can tell the Board still thinks that they are in the right and the wineries are in the wrong. Some of them even think the judge is wrong. The only way this board will seriously consider seriously negotiating is if and when they loose on appeal. Only then it will be too late again.
As Todd Anson has so eloquently said they are in over their heads. Nothing shameful about that. If I were in their position and tried to make decisions the way they have, I would be in over my head. I don’t want to have to pay whatever this is going to end up costing me. However, I have followed this whole process since before anyone talked about a lawsuit. I don’t know what was offered by either side, but I do know there was never a real effort by the Board to reach a conclusion that would address the needs of the wineries and by extention the farmers like myself supplying grapes to the wineries.
Everyone wants to know what the board turned down and rightfully so. I want to know what the Board offered to the wineries that the wineries turned down. Then I can compare it to what the wineries received from the court.
Marc
1. You clearly said “Not true”, “I’ve seen it”, and “they’ll be the ones to release it” in reference Becky Chown’s statement that the wineries were the ones to hide it at the July 10 Board Meeting.
2. Now you say you’ve not seen it.
3. Now, post ruling, you say you understand why they don’t want to share it because “there is no good that could come out for them by making this information public at this time.”
That is *exactly* what I am saying.
The public deserves to know that their Board was thinking of them. Not that they were driven by hubris, ego, incompetence, or whatever, as you and others have said.
Now with the slightest push back it seems the WOMP narrative was as hollow as it sounded.
Todd. Thanks for your perspective & theories wrt the past. It is time for all of us to move forward & focus on the 3 options the township has control over. The community is likely exhausted with finger pointing & past narratives. Township leaders need to actively pursue & timely communicate the facts wrt all 3 possible options 1) how taxes will be calculated per household 2) pursuing new settlement talks 3) conducting an exhaustive assessment of cost saving measures that don’t just “kick the can down the road.” It is time for all of us concerned citizens (including me) to turn the page & focus on narrative that is future focused.
Thank you Todd, for a most thoughtful look at the situation. My experience has been, throughout my own service on the Board and continuing to follow the progression of “neighbor suing neighbor”, represented by the WOMP lawsuit, that the Santucci brothers are always the very quickest to respond negatively to any rational or thoughtful discussion of the reality of this tragic lawsuit. As, I think, Shakespeare quoted, “methinks they do protest too much”. I have often wondered.
201 favorable to the wineries? What? Did any winery owners express a favorable opinion of that ordinance? Well over 40 farmers said to not pass 201.
Todd. I never said I saw the compromise. Don’t lie about what I said Rewatch it and see for yourself. I did say it would be released soon as that is what I was told. Obviously that was wrong and thus I was wrong to say it without verification. I wish I knew what was offered and rejected.
I am on a four day golf trip for the fortieth year in a row so whatever is said won’t be responded to by me until at least Sunday night. So for the next three days have fun misquoting me
Marc, I can be a lot of things, but a liar is not one of them. And I will always 100% own a mistake.
I did go back and review. In fact, I used software to split the audio into separate streams and isolate the individual audio tracks. Because Isaiah was talking at the same time, your voice and his are on the same track for just a second. The exact transcript is –
MS – “Not true.”
IW – “How do you know that?”
MS – “I know it because I’ve talked to them.”
IW – [Laughing] “okay…okay”
MS – “It will be released by them.”
IW – “I recommend you examine the court records, Marc.”
I have the audio clip if you or anyone would like to hear it for themselves.
This requires a reframing response.
I don’t have to “struggle” to find my objectivity here. Terri & I literally walked into the winery mess & a serious coastal bluff erosion crisis when we purchased a very nice home in December, ’19. We did not take sides or invest in land use micromanaging as many stakeholders like PTP and others have done. We weren’t even here yet.
I don’t find the first bit of objectivity in this post and position. It ignores the reality that a Federal Court has ruled that the wineries are not the villains here, we, the community breaking the law are. If that is a “crying shame” to anyone because the facts could have or should have led us elsewhere, it only proves the point that we should never have allowed this to get to litigation in the first place. We are in over our heads as a Township.
This attitude has cost us all & will continue to do so. It seems more focused on justifying the quite obviously poor (disastrous is a better choice, perhaps?) decisionmaking by our council that led us here than it is in brokering peace.
It is hard for me to read this as anything other than yet another self-justifying rant against the wineries who have decisively prevailed against our Township’s poor & actionable leadership.
Certain people need us to believe the wineries are villains. I believe the wineries are … wineries. Businesses. And citizens with legal protections they were pushed too far on and finally stood up for themselves. Nobody can reasonably support the choke hold we placed them in! Not one grape from off the peninsula? No hats or Tee Shirts or merchandise? Come on, now. It’s not their fault the Township couldn’t figure out where first base was in the litigation.
They should never have gotten us into this fight. We were & never will be equipped to win it. Public bodies are notorious for waging losing land use fights like this. Litigation requires agility & decisive maneuvering. It also requires unlimited resources. Our Township can never possess these qualities.
This attitude may provide reelection campaigns with poster materials and slogans (Terri & I both voted for Maura- we’ll see if regrettably so), but it continues the trite and divisive saber rattling. I hope she has the wisdom to ask for this rhetoric to take it down a notch..
It is precisely the wrong approach if we want to see this matter resolved.
Note not a single fact is cited recognizing the gravamen of the damage incurred by the wineries. Nor a hint of contrition for this hard line attitude’s generating the jaw dropping $50M & growing daily exposure.
Kind of like picking a fight with the great Ali, getting one’s clock cleaned, and then sniping at the Champ afterwards via Text message. No, Council, “we don’t want more.” We showed up for the fight conditioned like Chris Farley. The drubbing we took was all-too easy to administer.
This is because we simply DO NOT BELONG IN LITIGATION. It is a blood sport at which we can’t win. And you are playing with your neighbors’ money. So, please “cut it out!” And tone down the inflammatory rhetoric. It has no place here after what our Township, following PTP’s lead, has already put us through.
We are plenty smart enough to understand there are “two sides” to this like any other story. The focus now needs to shift to the common goal of brokering a settlement. There is ample talent in the PTP camp experienced in this.
This story only ends well when the “two sides” you continue to rile up “become one” through compromise. For that to happen everyone needs to lower the volume and begin to embrace “One Penisula” prioritizing “overcoming” tough obstacles TOGETHER.
For several days I’ve been waiting for some thoughts I had in response to Jane’s recent post. If interested, please keep an eye out for it.
Thank you, Todd for this thoughtful piece.