Wrong on Hillery
I am appalled by the misleading content of former Harmar Township Supervisor Barbara Noll's letter “Hillery for Harmar” (Oct. 20), in support of Mike Hillery.
In the letter, Noll states, “There are no more employee firings.” That's ironic, since Noll voted to fire Police Chief Riley Perrett and not retain former township secretary Tony Rozzano.
Thankfully, the VND has an online archive of articles. Please review the March 7, 2007, article “Harmer police chief fired; no reason given.” Then-Supervisor Noll said the decision came “after a lengthy internal investigation.”
Noll is attempting to keep her old cronies in power with blatantly misleading statements. What a self-serving hypocrite she is. Voters might want to remember that, since Noll is currently running for Harmar auditor.
I currently serve as a Harmar supervisor with Hillery, who clearly is on a power trip. I have been routinely kept off committees and denied access to township documents.
Mike Hillery attempts to take credit when none is due. As an example, Mike Hillery refused to lower our taxes for years. Instead, Mike and his crew went on a spending spree.
The only reason for the tax-rate reduction this year is a state law — the township had to reduce taxes to prevent a windfall due to reassessment.
Mike Hillery never let the facts or the truth get in his way. Just look up the articles about my proposals to reduce taxes and Mike Hillery's statements.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.