Comments by Walmart and Supervisor Joseph at 1/26/10 Meeting

Finally, it was Walmart’s time to discuss their Land Development Plan.  Attorney Erick Schock and Engineer Bud Newton were on-hand to represent Walmart.  Mr. Schock reiterated the request to have Supervisor Jerry Joseph recuse himself from everything related to their dealings with the township.  Walmart claims Supervisor Joseph has a conflict of interest due to “bias” since he is a named litigant in court cases involving the Conditional Use and Subdivision phases (some pending appeal and some completed) that involve Walmart.

Supervisor Joseph replied to Walmart by reading the following statement:

I want to respond to a request I have received by Walmart to recuse myself on all items concerning Walmart.

First let me say that I didn’t take on the responsibility of township supervisor just to say no to Walmart.   If anyone thinks this is the case, then they are severely underestimating me.

I’ve taken on this responsibility to help the township and its residents deal with the many concerns of the township including arsenic-tainted properties, heavy metals in drinking water, police coverage and security concerns, managing growing pains of the township, and general township operations.

As township supervisor, I am tasked by the 15000 plus residents of the township to use my good judgment and common sense in guiding the township through the maze of issues at hand and those we face in the future.

Let me be very clear about my views on this subject:   I am not anti-Walmart.  I shop at Walmart at least once a week.   As a matter of fact, the clothes I am wearing were purchased at a Walmart outside of Kansas City at 1am one night when I flew into town on a business trip and my luggage flew to some other city.

My concern isn’t the entity that is Wal-mart.   My concern is that the megastore will bring traffic from all surrounding townships to a portion of RT309 that is already heavily traveled and very congested.  Our section of RT309 is mostly residential as it has 300 properties along it, the majority of which are private residences housing over 500 people.

Across the street from the Walmart property is a private residence.  What will their life be like with the Walmart traffic and lights on all night for the 24/7 operation?  It is the residents of these properties that I am concerned about. I do not want to see our section of RT309 become over-commercialized and become MacArthur Road-West.

I feel I can be very objective on this issue.  On all issues before me, I must look at the facts and make informed decisions based on facts, not my feelings. If an applicant passes all phases of land development with no issues, then I would have a difficult time saying NO to them.

The issue of recusal is a slippery slope.  If I were to voluntarily recuse myself on issues where the land development applicants think I’m opposed, other applicants will be emboldened to ask me to recuse myself on their projects.  I cannot let this happen.

If I were to recuse myself on issues that seem difficult or when requested by land development applicants, I would be letting down not only the residents of the township who are counting on me to make the difficult decisions, but also would be letting myself down as I take extreme pride in the work I do and the decisions I make.  I am not here to take the easy way out.
Recusing myself from Board of Supervisor responsibilities on this issue for me would be the easy way out.  It would turn my vote basically into a NO vote as majority rule would still require 2 YES votes from the other supervisors.  This would put undue pressure on my supervisor colleagues and I have too much respect for them to do this.

I would like to read a sentence from the letter that I received from Wal-mart:

“It is Wal-Mart’s belief that (among other activities) your role in North Whitehall for Sustainable Development and as a named appellant in the appeals filed from Wal-Mart’s subdivision and conditional use approvals make your recusal necessary.”

Let me break down this statement into the three primary issues that Wal-Mart has with me:

1. I am named as an appellant in appeals. I will address this in a moment.
2. My role in North Whitehall for Sustainable Development: I didn’t know I had a defined “role”. I volunteered my time and energy in community based concerns. Are they discouraging me from being active in my community?
3. Other Activities: I don’t understand this objection. This apparently is not related to North Whitehall for Sustainable Development or the appeals. Is this a personal attack?

I am disappointed that a company who claims to be a good neighbor would immediately come after a township official with no provocation based on actions in office, and only based on issues that the person has participated in as a private citizen.

These actions by Wal-Mart only serve to embarrass and bully me with threats of legal action if I do not conform to the wishes of their legal counsel. It does worry me that in the future, township officials will continue to be bullied and lawsuits will follow any time Wal-Mart does not get their way.

I am not an unreasonable person. Even though the appeals that were filed on my behalf were directed at my own township and the opportunistic ways approvals were applied, and not directed at Wal-Mart, I will agree to make some concessions to show good faith.

As has been mentioned many times by Wal-mart’s council, each of the items for which discussions and decisions are made, which include conditional use, subdivision, and land development, are separate items and must be considered separately. Therefore, I too, will consider these items separately.

I will voluntarily recuse myself on all matters in which I have participated in appeals which although were directed at my own township, included Walmart. These matters include conditional use and subdivision and do not include land development in which I plan to participate not only on the Board of Supervisors, but also on the planning commission.
Thank You,
Jerry Joseph

After hearing Supervisor Joseph’s statement, Chairman Celmer asked township Solicitor Lisa Young for her opinion on the matter.  She agreed with Walmart that Supervisor Joseph has shown “bias” against Walmart and case law exists which provides a precedent that would indicate Supervisor Joseph’s perceived “bias” can be used as a justification to request his recusal.  The only case she mentioned involved a husband and wife situation where the husband was elected to public office and then was required to recuse himself from voting on an issue involving his wife.  Mr. Schock did not provide any details about the case(s) he is using to base his opinion on.

Mr. Schock and Mr. Newton then recessed for a few minutes to discuss how they planned to proceed in light of Supervisor Joseph’s refusal to recuse himself from the Land Development phase.  Upon their return, it was announced that they would like to proceed with their presentation.  However, it was nearing 10:00pm and Planning Commission meetings have had a long standing history of adjourning promptly at 10:00pm.  Chairman Celmer then offered to hold a special Planning Commission meeting so Walmart can make their presentation and potentially avoid the need to request another extension of time (current deadline is 2/17/10) to complete this portion of the Land Development phase.  The Commission members were polled to seek a date that would provide a quorum.  This special meeting is scheduled for Thursday (tomorrow), January 28th at 7:30pm.  Coincidentally, Supervisor Joseph cannot attend this meeting because he will be out of town on business.

After Walmart presents tomorrow evening, the Planning Commission will ask their questions and the public will have the opportunity to express their concerns, support, or objections to the Walmart plan and its impact on our community.  NW4SD encourages all of you to attend this meeting.  Walmart has attempted to silence Supervisor Joseph.  Don’t let them silence you.  See you at meeting.