To the Editor:
On June 3rd of this year the County Board was asked (for the second time) to investigate the option of adopting an Operations Ordinance similar to the one approved by Bayfield County. Chairman Pliml responded immediately with the same response heard numerous times “I have also spoken to some of the best attorneys in the state and they find Bayfield’s ordinance unenforceable.” he did not supply any further argument or rationale.
I attempted communication with Mr Pliml on two occasions requesting further information regarding his investigation and received no response. Out of frustration, an Open Records Request was served to Chairman Pliml at the June 20th County Board Meeting.
Two separate Open Records Request have now been made, yet Chairman Pliml refuses to share requested information. The first set of documents received were a ridiculous culmination of random emails, many unrelated to the records request. It is my belief this was Mr. Pliml’s purposeful attempt to bury the subject in a pile of paper documents. The only pertinent information shared regarding the investigation by Mr. Pliml was a copy of a newspaper article and a few slides from a Powerpoint presentation. I hardly call that an “investigation”. This prompted an additional, much more specific, Open Records Request presented in early July.
On two separate occasions, during the June 20th Board Meeting and a community meeting at the Saratoga Hall on June 25th, Chairman Pliml publicly declared he would share the names of Attorneys spoken to and information gathered regarding the possibility of an Operations Ordinance. Instead, Chairman Pliml had Corporate Counsel Peter Kastenholz respond to the second Open Records Request stating that all pertinent information had been previously provided and that Mr. Pliml was under no obligation to “Memorialize” conversations had with Attorneys regarding the Operating Ordinance discussed.
Mr. Pliml’s refusal to answer the simple question regarding who he had spoken to comes as no surprise to me or others involved in this interaction. Many have believed from the very beginning that Mr. Pliml had never truly discussed the Operating Ordinance with anyone nor had he actually spoken to “some of the best Attorneys in the state”. Mr. Pliml’s initial response to the first Open Records Request lacked any documentation regarding the Operating Ordinance proving clearly his lack of honesty and integrity.
If Mr. Pliml had really gone the extra mile for his constituents he would be more than willing to share the information gathered and willingly discuss conversations had. Chairman Plim instead hides behind Corporate Counsel and refuses to share said information. The reasoning is simple – he has nothing to share and never did.
This is who we have leading our Wood County Board, we should all be concerned.