The two members of the BOH voted for a change by ending Dave Kowalski´s “one man show” by approving a motion to elect Kenneth Ference to the position of the chair.
Kenneth Ference and Dana Manning had no other choice, as the Board of Health was dysfunctional to the point were conducting official business became impossible.
Shortly thereafter, Brian Johnson walked into a public meeting by the BOH and was not very happy when he, instead as the usual sign-off by the “god ol' boys” system, had to answer some questions.
The exemplary conduct by the two members, Ference and Manning, who refused to engage in the preferential treatment Brian Johnson expected, was answered with a frivolous open meeting law complaint by Johnson against Manning.
Despite a letter from the Attorney General's office that the case is dismissed without finding any open meting law violation on the side of Dana Manning, the disgruntled trio Johnson Kowalski and Wettlaufer started a recall against Ference and Manning.
The recall is based on lies, Kenneth Ference's and Dana Manning's conduct towards the three men, all weathered members of the “god ol' boys” network in town, was not “official misconduct,” it was threatening their self-serving corrupt ways. The recall of the two members of the BOH is an affront on our community and in particular, on every resident of our town who believes in a free civilized society, read more»
Edit - Delete
Comments:Posted on 30 Mar 2015, 19:33 by Justice for All!
Put Johnson, Wetlauffer & Kowalski in their rightful places--- out of
Politics! Out of Holland. We deserve honesty. We deserve
A trustworthy, hard working devoted person who follows the law,
Not someone who can be paid off!
Time to start doing your job Mandel!!
What is wrong with you. Wake up & smell the corruption!
We didn't want this from you & we told you so.
We demand no corruption!
We demand a town without THUGS like Zjohnson, Wetlauffer & Kawolski!
Posted on 30 Mar 2015, 20:58 by Christine McCooe Hanson
Just aint' true ..
That was some read! Thank you. I have said this before and will say it again. Too many town employees and town elected officials put Personalities before Principles. It's got to stop. Please don't believe what they are saying about Kenneth Ference and Dana Manning .. it just ain't true!!
I know Kenneth Ference, very well. He is the MOST HONEST person I know. He would not make a decision and has not made a decision without knowing what the law was and without doing the research to find out is right. He cares about his position on BOH and the well being of ALL citizens in Holland.
I voted for Dana Manning because she too believes in doing the right thing according to the law. She does more research than anyone I have seen in an elected position in the Town. She too took an oath to serve and she is.
As far as I can see, and know Dana and Kenneth have done nothing wrong or illegal. It's a real damn shame that one or two disatisfied people need to start this much trouble for two elected officials that ARE doing their jobs.
I don't like to see my tax dollars wasted. I don't like to see unfairness or favorism in our town government. I voted for change! It may take some time folks but it's happening. Don't let these false accusations destroy it.
I have seen in the Town of Holland when people are doing their jobs, they get bullied & critized. When people ARE NOT doing their jobs they get recognized. That makes NO sense to me.
More and more citizens who have been in Holland much longer than me have seen this unfairness before, they are sick of it. They have given up. People who want to say something when they disagree or something isn't right are afraid to open their mouths. That just isn't right ...
I've been bullied at Board of Selectmen meetings by some, when I had questions or concerns .. that's just not right.
I've walked into Board of Health asking for documentation on my property and it couldn't be found. I waited 3 years for a Certificate of Compliance on my Septic plans. I wondered how many BOH complaints about serious things have never even been looked into. The BOH today has gotten better since Kenneth and Dana joined - not perfect but Dana and Kenneth are working real hard to get it where it needs to be. Don't believe the trash that is being said about them has any good for any of us.
Please don't sign petitions unless you REALLY know what you're signing. I spoke with two people today, one signed because he doesn't like Peter Frie (what does that have to do with anything) the other signed because he was told it had to do with HIS work hours being cut backed.
MOST IMPORTANTLY - these two peole ARE doing their jobs by the book.
Posted on 1 Apr 2015, 17:37 by Peter Frei
Dave Kowalski, what a disappointment you are...
Dana Manning's letter had the sole purpose to put the 28 signers who signed Kowalski's first “recall affidavit” on notice of what they signed so they can later during a legal proceeding not claim they did not know. Manning mailed all letters by “certificate of mailing” (form 3817) and nobody will be able to claim they did not get the letter, (there is a legal presumption that if you can prove the mailing of a letter that the letter reached its addressee.)
Manning's letter even informed the 28 individuals who signed the recall affidavit that they can file the actual petition as, “the recall petition is not an affirmation that the violations Kenneth Ference and I [Manning] are accused of are in fact true.”
The question is whether Kowalski's document meets the legal requirement to constitute a “recall affidavit.” If it does, the 28 signors give any judge a reason to find them not only guilty of libel per se; any court will have grounds to find them guilty of perjury. Affidavits are always signed under the pains and penalty of perjury and if they are not, it is not an affidavit!
As David Kowalski not only signed what he purports to be a recall affidavit but failed to clearly mark it as such, he can also be found guilty of fraud and other crimes such as violations of election related legislation which will have to be researched.
Dave Kowalski made a point to change his statements from uttering actual factual violations about Ference's and Manning's conduct to “alleged” violations. Court's treat statements which allege official misconduct more and more the same as actual factual statements as the word “alleged” does not alter an inflammatory statement much. As such the word is not effective in avoiding prosecution.
Dave Kowalski's recall domain name was registered on March 24, 2015, at 21:35 hours. The registration is under the name David Kowalski, Holland Mail and Graphics, 122 Mashapaug Road, Holland Ma, 01521, phone 413 303 1701.
As everybody should know by now, I'm a wired guy. I just take it personal when anybody is trying to unjust oppress a good or legal thing (farm on the hillside property), promote a bad thing (truck stop, housing for the elderly that needs 18 variances and was poorly planned), or take advantage and even steal from our community (Johnson Landgate, private Wettlaufer-Johnson lawsuit paid by the taxpayers), and do what ever it takes to prevent injustices and projects detrimental to our community.
Dave Kowalski is a huge disappointment as I had no idea that he would be crooked enough and stupid to do a thing like this hideous recall.
Kowalski now is best friends with individuals like James Wettlaufer and Brian Johnson, “birds of feather flock together..” By the way, so do pigs and swine...
I was starting a piece showing the frivolous nature of his recall efforts and his laughable website, but it is not worth it. I can not imagine that his recall will amount to anything other than get him, and all those not smart enough to repudiate their signature after signing his recall affidavit, in serious trouble.
Posted on 3 Apr 2015, 23:13 by Peter Frei
Questions for Kowalski
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: questions about the recall
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 21:40:40 -0400
From: Peter Frei private <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Please help me clarify a few things by answering a few questions, I have been asked by individuals and could not answer.
Here are the questions:
1. Not that it mattered who wrote the email to the ZBA, what matters is who signed it. However, I did not write the email to the ZBA and if I would have, there is no reason for me to deny that. However, I did not write it and that is how I do know that I did not say that, as it would be a lie and I do not lie... As Johnson claims that I was questioned during the ZBA meeting whether I wrote the email or not, did you see a remark about this in the ZBA minutes? Did you ask Fred Beaulieu if he in fact asked me? What did he say? I do not talk to Brian Johnson, therefore it is impossible that he was the one who asked me. Please answer the question.
2. As far as I can see, Dana's position, I hope, will influence the ZBA's decision because it should! Please read my piece on the Holland Blog if you not already did because it will give you an explanation why it is Dana's business whether the ZBA will issue a special permit or variance because such permit would be granted outside the law. If you disagree, please let me know what I'm missing here.
3. You wrote on your website, "In other words, the Board of Health did not deliberate and even if it had standing in Zoning Board of Appeals matters, which it doesn't, it could not comment as the 'Board of Health.'" Please correct me if I'm wrong by interpreting G.L. c.40A, s.17 as to give any municipal officer standing to appeal a decision reached by the ZBA or the PBH; especially a member of the board of health. I did make this point in my piece on the Holland Blog. Do you disagree that a member of the BOH has standing in ZBA decision pursuant to G.L. c.40A, s.17?
4. Thanks for mentioning the unfair treatment of my applications in the past, I appreciate it. It does put everything into prospective, doesn't it? It took me more than 12 years to get my septic system approved despite the fact that I did not need one single variance, and that the plan submitted at the outset was pretty much what I got at the end. But this is not about my situation, this is about Johnson's situation. If you have read my piece and if you assume that Dana's and my analysis is correct and the Johnson property is none conforming and he does need a variance, can you see that equal protection under the law goes both ways as I argued. In particular, do you agree that "Equal protection under the law entails both, not allowing a benefit outside the law as well as not denying a lawful benefit" as stated in my piece? If I'm wrong, please let me know where I'm wrong.
5. You also point out that she used her private email account to send her email to the ZBA. Again correct me if I'm wrong, but was it not you who had everything on a private flash drive and on your personal computer and Dana had no access to any computer or email on any computer which was the property of the BOH back on November 29, 2014? What should she have done different? At the time she was already looking for a resolution and eventually obtained a computer to do official business through a town computer. If you would suggest that there was the outdated computer at the BOH office, she had no key to get to that computer!
6. You wrote on your website, "I arrived at the town hall at 6:50 PM, at about 7:00 PM several people who were on the Board of Health agenda for that evening began to arrive. Ms. Manning neither came to the meeting nor called to say she would not be in attendance." Is it custom to call if members can't attend a meeting? How many times did you call during the four month you stayed absent to let the other two members know that you will not attend?
7. Did you read the Attorney General's letter addressed to Johnson which put an end to his complaint without a finding of any violation? How is it that you do not mention this on your website?
8. You wrote that you are "really disturbed" about "the abusive unethical treatment" and that "They told me because the Board of Health has the authority to do so [ask Johnson about how many bedrooms he has and whether someone lives in his garage]. That's true, but with some very significant caveats. First the Board would have to ask Mr. Johnson how many bedrooms he had, then if they doubted his answer and they believed otherwise and had probable cause and they could convince a judge to issue a warrant, then they could go onto Mr. Johnson's property and count his bedrooms. Additionally, they would face the legal consequences if they were wrong." What would be the "legal consequences you are writing about [to ask an applicant about the number of bedrooms]? Isn't it very simple, if Johnson would refuse access the BOH could not make an informed decision and just deny the application. The same mechanism by the way is in place with the Board of Assessors. If you
file for an abatement, the Board of Assessors does not need to trust you and they do not need to get a court warrant either. They will just deny your request for an abatement, that would be the end of it. I'm disturbed too, I'm disturbed about you making factual false statements of official misconduct and other truly serious violations towards Ference and Manning who only did their job. Regardless of how you twist and distort the situation, Isn't there something really wrong with your picture, you find Ference's and Manning's conduct disturbing and unethical and official misconduct when in fact they only did their job. While at the same time you think that there is nothing abusive and unethical about what you are doing... What is wrong, to ask an applicant about the number of bedrooms or accusing two members of the BOH of having committed the crime of official misconduct and numerous violation of OML and even more? Please answer this question too.
9. There is a difference in signing a petition and signing an affidavit stating as a fact that an individual violated the law and is therefore a criminal. Since when is it a Constitutional Right to libel someone? You failed to mention that Dana informed the 28 individuals who signed the recall affidavit that they "may sign the petition." She did not even ask them not to sign the petition. Did you fail to notice that or was it deliberate omission on your side?
There is more. You fail to see that Dana and Ken don't need to sue their way "out" of this as they are not "in" anything.
I will give you a week to respond to these questions and post this email on the blog with, or without your answers.
Posted on 4 Apr 2015, 19:52 by A Taxpayer
What many people might not understand is that Ms. Manning does not act on her own whim, rather she is legally obligated to follow the letter of the law- lest she is held liable. Sure this might make her unpopular at times, especially with foiks who were used to getting their own way with former Chairs, but there are laws for good reason. Instead of libeling Ms. Manning, we should be supporting her efforts. I volunteered for years and its a thankless job. Lots of long hours of personal time - away from family- trying to do what's best for the WHOLE town, not just a select few. I guess no good deed goes unpunished for Ms. Manning.
Posted on 12 Apr 2015, 1:28 by Skipper
No OML violation without deliberation
Mr. Kowalski accuses Mr. Manning of deliberating without a quorum on his recall website (which is hard to get to) by sending an email to the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
I read the email written by Ms. Manning which is posted on this website and what I read is an analysis of applicable laws and a reminder that town officials should not have special rights. That is not a deliberation in my opinion. Deliberations take place where discretionary decisions are being deliberated and thereby formed. Not so here, the law seems pretty straight forward and create a mandate on the side of the Zoning Board of Appeals to deny Mr. Johnson's applications. Mr. Johnson may not like the fact that he can not improve his property the way he likes but it seems to me, reading Ms. Manning's email, that his property is not grandfathered and the Zoning Board of Appeals' hands are tied.
I commend Ms. Manning's courage and hope that folks do not sign the petition which seems foolish to me at best.