Several public statements made by Oxford Village President Steve Allen came under fire at last week’s Oxford Public Fire and EMS Commission meeting.
Oxford Township Supervisor Bill Dunn presented written materials and audio tapes to refute statements Allen made at the July 17 OPFEC meeting, at which Dunn was absent.
“I did not start this,” Dunn said. “I did not bring this up, but I was shocked when I heard the tape of last month’s meeting and I’m simply responding to what was said.”
Much of Dunn’s presentation centered on a July 14 e-mail Allen sent to the Clawson City Council.
“I will tell you the City of Clawson is not very happy with that e-mail, I mean, they are fuming,” the supervisor said
Clawson officials have been debating whether to keep their local police department or contract with the Oakland County Sheriff’s Department.
In his e-mail, Allen explains to Clawson council members why the village council in 2000 chose to form its own police department, instead of contracting with the sheriff’s department like the township board voted to do.
Dunn played an audio tape excerpt from the July 17 OPFEC meeting at which Oxford Township resident Helen Barwig asked Allen if Clawson requested the e-mail from him.
“Did they ask you to do this?” Barwig said.
Allen replied, “Yes. A Clawson council member contacted me and asked why we did what we did. And that was my response to him.”
After playing the audio tape, Dunn asked, “Mr. Allen, do you stand by this statement?”
“Absolutely,” Allen replied.
“Well good,” Dunn said as he proceeded to read an Aug. 7 letter from Clawson City Manager Joseph Merucci which refutes Allen’s statement.
“In the last two days, I have spoken individually to each of my five city council members regarding the e-mail sent by Steve Allen on July 14, 2003. Each of them told me unequivocally, they had never heard of or spoken to Mr. Allen prior to receiving the e-mail, let alone ask for his input regarding the city’s discussion of contracting with the Oakland County Sheriff for police services. In fact, only one council member, David Bartley, has ever spoken to Mr. Allen and this occurred after he received the e-mail. He telephoned Mr. Allen to discuss the contents of it. A question that arises to me is, if Mr. Allen was contacted by one of the city’s council members for his input on the matter, why would he carbon copy three members of the Clawson Police Department in his response?” Merucci wrote.
This reporter contacted Merucci by phone on Aug. 21 and he verified that he sent the Aug. 7 letter and confirmed its contents.
This reporter contacted every member of the Clawson City Council and each confirmed that they never contacted Allen or requested his input prior to his July 14 e-mail.
“It wasn’t this council member,” said Clawson Mayor Pro Tem Thomas A. Palmer in response to Allen’s July 17 statement. “I’ve not talked to any elected official or phoned anyone. I’ve contacted nobody in Oxford.”
“The first I heard of Mr. Allen was when I received the e-mail,” said Clawson Councilman James Horton. “I’ve never contacted the man (either before or after the e-mail). I didn’t know who he is.”
Clawson Councilman Joe Schwab said Allen’s version of why the e-mail was sent “is not the case as far as I’m concerned.” The councilman said he never contacted Allen for his input and characterized Allen’s July 14 communication as an “unsolicited e-mail.”
Even after receiving the e-mail, Schwab said he still didn’t contact Allen.
“I chose not to call him at all,” he said.
When asked if he contacted Allen and requested his input prior to the July 14 e-mail, Clawson Councilman David Bartley replied, “Absolutely not.”
“I had no knowledge of him (Allen) until the e-mail,” Bartley said. “The only Steve Allen I knew was the old comedian.”
Bartley confirmed he did contact Allen after receiving the e-mail because “so many things” in it “did not jive” with what he’d heard from officials in communities served by the sheriff’s department.
“Basically, everything he (Allen) told me was different than what the communities told me,” Bartley said.
When asked if she was the council member who sought Allen’s input, Clawson Mayor Barbara Iseppi, “No, I did not, sir. Not at all.”
Dunn also pointed out that Allen’s July 14 e-mail contained a falsehood concerning the amount of money spent on the now-defunct joint (township-village) Oxford Police Department as opposed to the sheriff’s contract.
Allen wrote, “The cost of Oxford Township’s police protection contract (with the sheriff’s department) exceeds the total cost of the previous combined department, thus negating the ‘cost savings’ aspect of the original promises by township officials.”
“That is flat not true,” Dunn said.
According to Oxford Village Clerk Rose Bejma, in 1999, the last year the joint Oxford Police was operational, the department’s budget and actual spending exceeded $2.4 million.
According to the township’s records, the first year (2000) of the sheriff’s contract cost approximately $1.1 million. After that the township’s police contract cost $1.2 million in 2001, $1.396 million in 2002 and $1.68 million in 2003.
Dunn also challenged Allen’s statement during the July 17 meeting that the supervisor had “went down to Clawson and sung the praises of the Oakland County Sheriff’s Department” and stated “how wonderful everything was.”
“I don’t know how Mr. Allen knew what happened down at that meeting because I didn’t see him in the audience and I don’t know if he ever saw the tape,” Dunn said.
Dunn then played an audio tape except from the July 1 Clawson City Council meeting, which Merucci confirmed the supervisor attended as a guest of himself and the mayor.
Dunn’s statement at that meeting was as follows – “I’m not here to tout the sheriff’s department. I’ve gone through what you guys are going through now and it’s traumatic. I was one of the last holdouts. I wanted my hometown police department. But when two millages failed, the people said we don’t want your police department since we had some internal problems with a chief and a budget. So again, I’m not here to tout the sheriff’s department. If people have any questions on the transition, that’s exactly why I’m here.”
This reporter obtained and watched a video tape copy of the July 1 Clawson meeting to confirm Dunn’s statement.
Statements made by Allen at the July 17 OPFEC meeting regarding sheriff’s deputies alleged use of facilities at the village police station were also refuted.
Allen stated sheriff’s deputies use the village station’s lockup and breathalizer, along with writing their reports and booking their prisoners there.
Oxford Sheriff’s Substation Commander Lt. Al Whitefield refuted all Allen’s claims.
“All booking is done strictly at the county jail,” he said. “Ours is all done through an automated system down there. Our deputies on the road do not book their prisoners. That’s all done at the jail.”
“We can’t do our reports there (at the village station) because all our reports are done on computers. The (report) formats are only on the computers at the substation. We’ve never done them there (at the village station) We can’t,” Whitefield said.
“We don’t use their lookup,” the lieutenant said. “I have not talked to one deputy who’s ever used that (village) lockup. We only take them there to do the breathalizer and then they’re transported to the jail.”
As for who owns the breathalizer, Whitefield wanted to make it clear that “the village does not own it.”
Whitefield said “it’s owned by the state,” a fact he confirmed with the Michigan State Police.
However, because of Allen’s statements, Whitefield said he issued a memo that from now on, all breathalizer testing is to be done at the county jail.
Allen chose not to comment on his statements or Dunn’s presentation during the Aug. 20 OPFEC meeting.
On Aug. 21, this reporter e-mailed Allen a list of questions about his statements and the evidence presented refuting them. The village president did not reply to the e-mail.
On Aug. 23, this reporter asked Allen in person to comment on the situation.
The village president said he would not be publicly commenting on it, adding that he and Dunn “are trying to work things out” between themselves.
Allen did publicly apologize for one of his statements at the Tuesday, Aug. 26 council meeting.
“I would like to take the opportunity to apologize to Mr. Bill Dunn. I characterized a visit that he made to the community of Clawson when they were talking about contracting with the Oakland County Sheriff’s Department. I characterized his visit as praising the Oakland County Sheriff’s Department. That was not correct. I have apologized to him in person. I going to do it here publicly and I’m going to do it also at the next OPFEC meeting. I was incorrect. I should not have made that comment. It will never happen again. That’s all,” Allen said.
After the meeting, this reporter played an audio tape of Allen’s apology for Dunn and asked for his response.
“I appreciate the apology for one of his statements, but I’m still waiting for explanations of the rest of them,” Dunn said.