It Is Not Always Black and White

Ms. Irene White wrote:
''The law says YOU CANNOT increase the salary. What is gray about it?''

What is gray is what to do when the person is no longer in office and they provided a service for the salaries they received (I am not saying that we got good service, just that the Village received a service) and they were operating under the belief that it was a valid Ordinance. That is the gray area which the Attorney General's opinion addresses. I wished that it had been found sooner or that the Council and Solicitor had been doing their jobs and passed it correctly. It was passed ~14 days to late for the term beginning in 1996. It is not that easy to go just take the money back and I am sure that it would involve a lawsuit and the Village would be spending money trying to recover money and if the Village were to lose the lawsuit than the Village loses even more.

Ms. Irene White wrote:
''I can justify anything I have done.''

Please than justify why you broke the law and voted to appoint your son to a vacate seat on the Council.

Ms. Irene White wrote:
''I would like to know your motives for fighting me so hard if you aren't involved?''

I am fighting hard for the Village because I do not and have not believed that the path that you have suggested is the correct way to accomplish the same goal. In my opinion the options you have suggested would have only sent the Village further into debt and made many of the problems worse. I am not and was not involved in 99.9% of the claims that you have made, but I also feel that people should have all the information not just what you want to give them. Give them ALL the information and let them make their own decision. I also have a belief that it should be fair to all and that blame should lie with ALL the parties involved not just the individuals that you want to single out. You have refused to accept that there are more than just two or three people at fault for the financial straits the Village suffered. All I have ever asked is to hold everyone that is responsbile accountable.

Ms. Irene White wrote:
''Parrish is a liar. I offered information, he refused. He said because I smoked. We could have done it somewhere else. Get over yourself.''

I offered to meet at the Village Hall or any other public place and YOU REFUSED. Again, you should give people the truth. You did (and may still do) smoke and I did not want to smell like an ashtray after visiting your home or having it effect my breathing or health.

Followed Up What?

Ms. Irene White wrote:
''Parrish 'forgot' to say that the illegal raise for the mayor and clerk from January 1996 WAS NOT 4 years. It has been 10 and still going. It does include Pussolillo, Hunt, Cain, Cosgrove, Graves and Stoner. It was NEVER voided.''

I did not forget to say anything Ms. White. Again, that is your need to put words in people's mouth. It was only 4 years, with the beginning of the terms starting in 2000 the Ordinance would have been valid and correctly implemented. You want to hold Cosgrove and Stoner accountable to an Ordinance that does not even apply to them because they are Fiscal Officers and a separate Ordinance created their position and set their salary. Ordinance 466 does not and never has applied to either of them since they are not elected and do not serve terms. You should strive to give the people the correct information.

Ms. Irene White wrote:
''When Parrish 'moved' the mayor's correspondence for safe keeping, why did he 'move' it to his personal belongings instead of putting it in the mayor's mail slot, under the door or toss it through the little window onto the clerk's desk? Why did he not return it until he was caught? If someone had not seen only him in the Village Hall during the cleaning, it would never have been returned. These are the facts as known by all.''

They are the facts known by you. I have admitted that I could have chosen a better place to put the letter than in my mailbox in the Village Hall that was accessible to every member of Council. The letter never left the Village Hall and was moved to prevent it from getting wet while I cleaned the Village Hall before the Council meeting that evening. When I returned to the Village Hall before the meeting I was busy talking to some residents and when asked if I had seen the letter I quickly retrieved it from my mailbox in the Village Hall and gave it to Mr. Williams. There was no theft involved, that is just your opinion. You later tried to illegally remove me from Council for that alledged crime.

Ms. Irene White wrote:
''Parrish can't even tell the truth about Watkins being on line or his taking the mayor's correspondence. As he stated, 'draw your own conclusions.' ''

I am a little confused about when I have alledgedly lied about Mayor Watkins being online. He is not currently online and has not had internet service for over a year. I do not know what it is I have lied about concerning that matter, as to the letter I believe that I have addressed it above and your version of the ''facts'' do not seem to match up with the truth.

Ms. Irene White wrote:
''You think his is believable? Do you think all the politicians in state government are honest? If I was libiling them, why don't they sue instead of threatenng me? They have all the resources. Does this make since?''

I believe that based on the recent allegations made of some of the top officers in the State that their is reason to be concerned about the actions taken by those individuals. I would not use the fact that you have not been sued as a justification that what you have been saying is the truth or you would have been sued. There are a multitude of reasons why you have not been sued so far, many being people do not want to waste their own money to sue when they know they would never be able to recover any damages from you, or since many of your claims have been made against public officials the courts have stated that the Public Officials have to take a little more than the average person and that it is difficult to prove libel against a public official. In this case A + B does not equal C.