Mayor Gilliland spends an extraordinary amount of time researching, writing and executing grants that bring money into the borough. I have not seen any other mayor or council member display the same drive and initiative as she. I have also never witnessed a council oppose the mayor so strongly about a great number of both trivial and fundamental issues.
One of the first oppositions Patty received was during the governor’s visit where he was announcing a grant award. Fred Wisor said that only the council had the power to redirect traffic. Not only was this topic petty, but Mr. Wisor was incorrect. The police have authority to redirect traffic without council’s approval. Mayor Patty received a lot of criticism for allowing police officers to pass out invitations to local businesses to attend the event. Her inventiveness to bond members of the community was heavily criticized, even though past mayors have allowed the police to participate in mock arrests to raise money for charity and strengthen the community.
Next was the unfounded request for resignation which was nothing more than a political smear effort. Council has refused to provide legitimate information to support their request for the resignation and the public is still unaware of any wrongdoing on the part of the mayor. The council’s decision to spoon feed the public in such a manipulative manner is propaganda.
To be honest, I don’t think the law allows any mayor to have unlimited access to the evidence room. I am not positive that this is the exact scope of Mayor Gilliland’s lawsuit. But if I try to understand things from Mayor Patty’s position, she probably feels this new policy was another opposition attempt by a council of bullies. Their next move stripped her of scheduling duties which, by law, she has the right. When the borough discussed the changes to the chief’s contract that gave him exclusive scheduling power, Fred Wisor was quoted in media as saying, “if we get it wrong now, we can always fix it later.” This is the mindset of the Council. It is their irresponsibility, unprofessionalism and disregard for the law that has resulted in many lawsuits this past year.
The borough is a defendant in another lawsuit against the EEOC regarding the scheduling of the police department. Perhaps, Mayor Gilliland was working to solve a scheduling and personnel conflict within her department, but she was, yet again, opposed by council and stripped of her right to solve the problem. The borough is now being sued by a federal commission. The borough responded to the lawsuit by saying, “there is no justification to the charges,” which is to say, they cannot defend the charges.
During the past year, I have been victim to the borough’s propaganda as they blame their legal costs on the plaintiffs who demand the borough to abide by law. A decision to allow an office to be placed as a special exception in an area zoned residential suburban is illegal. The code specifically states that an office cannot be placed in an area zoned residential suburban, nor does an office qualify as a special exception within this zone. However, the zoning hearing board, their solicitor, the borough council and their solicitor all disregarded the Borough Code. In fact, all of them refused to listen to any of my concerns, with the exception of Mayor Patty Gilliland. Council had the opportunity to research the law, read my attorney’s argument and reverse the decision. Fred Wisor said, “We should support the zoning board.” Instead of responsibly informing themselves and abiding by law, council abandoned the lawsuit and announced the legal fees in such a way as to imply that I was the blame for the costs to the taxpayers. This is the mindset of council.
While at the borough office, a friend of mine overheard Mr. Wisor respond to a complaint about shrub damage done by the maintenance department. He responded by saying, “that guy is picky.” This is the mindset of the borough. They have little respect for things that are important to everyday citizens and when their selfish decisions disregard the law, they blame legal fees on those that seek justice.
Recently, the borough attempted to overcharge Bionol for inspection and other fees related to the construction of the ethanol plant. By law, they are not allowed to receive more than the costs they incur. They attempted to receive almost $49,000 more than what was allowed by law. Fred Wisor was quoted as saying, “a $1,000 is worth more to us than to them.” This is the mindset of the borough council.
To those citizens that say, “I’ll vote for a mayor that won’t sue the town,” I say, “I’d vote for a mayor that isn’t a pawn in the illegal tactics of borough council.” To those citizens that think Mayor Patty is to blame for the superfluous $5,172.50 in solicitor’s fees, I would suggest you consider the contract with the new solicitor and take into account the amount of money the council has spent in other lawsuits this past year. If you want to support a council that has a pattern of disregarding the law, then you must start to accept the legal fees that accompany the mindset of this Council.
One may ask, “Why has this council continually opposed a mayor that has proved to be a significantly positive influence on the community?” To answer this question, you should first consider the mindset of the Clearfield Borough Council. I empathize with Mayor Patty’s efforts for justice against an oppressive Borough Council that uses propaganda to skirt the law. While I may not agree with all of her views, I most certainly respect the Mayor’s intent and compassion for the citizens of Clearfield.
Joe Marino
Clearfield
