Under May's Council Meeting, Paul Parrish wrote talking about me, '' If residents knew of your background and that of the others along with the plans made behind closed doors they would never have elected you and the others in the first place.''

I would asked Mr. Parrish, how many ''closed door meeting,'' were held by Russolillo, John Hellwege, Craig Smith, you, and Tom Watkins? OH, we aren't supposed to talk about those are we?

Under the same topic, Paul stated,''I backed Tom Watkins for mayor. I believe that of the three candidates that ran for the position that he was the best person for the job.''

My background was in the open. I can't say the same for Watkins. As important job as mayor, why wasn't Watkins' ackground checked? I told them but no one seem to care about what he did. You all lied about me to the residents and kept his a secret. It won't be for long. He can't bare any close scrutiny of his life. He even lied about his education and work history.

Mr. Parrish knew this and still backed Watkins. What dose this say about his ethics?

Parrish also lied in the topic, ''Con't from May's Council Meeting.'' He stated, ''I did not approve the paying of the bills from the hearing,[Mark Consolo's]and discussed that at length with the auditors. Again that is a false claim that you continue to make Ms. White.''
I would ask anyone reading this posting to go to the Village Hall ask for a copy of the minutes and resolutions of the October 2002 council meeting. See who all voted to pay the past due bills, this included the bills for Mark's hearing. I was the ONLY one who refused! At that time it was asked how much money was in the police fund. Stoner told us $15,000 for the rest of the year. Then she took it on herself to lay the officers off, by saying there was no money. Ironically this was about what Parrish said the hearing cost.
On the insurance fraud, ''it was investigated and NO WRONG DOING was found. You refuse to accept the truth. I believe holding those resposible for what they did, not what you believe they did.''

Mr. Parrish still refuses to admit what he said when this was discussed. It was the days residents came to the Hall to hear the complaints against Raylene. Raylene said, ''Some of the things on the claim didn't happen during the flood but need repaired.'' Parrish did not even look at the complaints. And even left at one point. He did state, ''If he have an accident and had a dent before wouldn't you have them repair the whole car?'' It is not the same thing. Is this supposed to condone getting doors replaced that were not damaged but old? No one at that meeting would talk to the ''investigator'' and others lied. It is a shame they were not sworn to tell the truth.

Mr. Parrish threatened me in the posting June 1, 2003. He said,''You have to take a lot more from people and accept it. If you want to start trouble go right ahead, but do not forgot that I warned you.''

And to Valleyviewers,he also said on Sept. 21,2003, ''You should be very careful about claims you make about the officers.''

Andy Hawk said on Sept. 1, 2003, I saw myself throw it in the dumpster, I already had it and was throwing it away, there was no perp. I have burnt guns, drugs, bikes, license plates, wrenches, tire irons and many other things. What is the big deal?''

I thought the big deal was ''destroying evidence !!!

On Sept. 25, 2003. He had not been chief for over two years. He said, ''I wonder what you civilians who have absolutely no knowledge of handling property intend to do with all that property?''
I have to continue this. I went over my word limit.

Con't fromcheck on Officials


Mark Consolo became chief Jan. 21, 2001. What happened to records? He erased the computer when the police were disbanded. I heard from another officer that he had a lot of GOOD stuff on it.

Linda Stoner wrote a letter to me that she could not find any request to destroy records or evidence during Hawk and Consolo's tenure.

Who gave either of them permission to destroy anything?

Is this the ''latitude'' Parrish wants to give the police?

Tom Watkins is a joke and more. These are the people that Paul Parrish says you have to trust over what I say.

It is a shame that you did not listen about Watkins. He can still be ousted from office. He may have some friends but watch them drop him when it all comes out. The only bad thing about him going, is that Paul would be mayor. Maybe he can go to for supporting Watkins without telling you the truth. That would be called aiding and abetting Watkins to office.

Have a nice day. It is hot in Huntington. It will be getting hot there for some people.

Your Interpretation

Ms. White wrote:
''Mr. Parrish threatened me in the posting June 1, 2003. He said,'You have to take a lot more from people and accept it. If you want to start trouble go right ahead, but do not forgot that I warned you.'''

Ms. White you took it as a threat I gave it to you as a friendly warning that as a pubic official the courts have ruled that you have to accept the critism of the public and they are allowed to say more and are given more latitude. They other part of that statement was that as a public official you could be get in trouble because you do not have the right to make allegations the same as you would if you were only a resident and not a public official. That courts have consistently ruled that public official have very little latitude when they make allegations and that they have to accept more critism and that the public is given more leeway as to what they can say.

The question remains how public agency after public agency has looked into Ms. White's claims and has found no wrong doing. She refuses to accept the decisions of those public officials and claims they did not do their job properly.

I believe that those officals did their jobs properly and looked into the claims made by Ms. White. They did not find any wrong doing so it is time to move forward.


I am sorry that you took a warning to keep you out of trouble as a threat.

Still Avoiding Issues


Mr. Parrish you still always avoid answering the facts.

No where in your statement did you say it was a ''friendly warning.''

Any public official can make an allegation. Is that how you and Watkins keep council in line?

Susie Sullivan even told the insurance investigator about the claim.

Parrish said he wants to do the right thing. All he and the residents who were there had to do was tell the investagator what Paylene said about the things not damaged in the flood but needed repaired or replaced.

That is fraud in every sense of the word.