Rose responds to recall effort
Alderman Greg Rose said he is not surprised a recall attempt has been started against him.
The Clintonville Tribune Gazette sent Rose an email asking several questions about the recall effort. Rose returned the email within hours of it being sent and included answers for every question asked.
Were you surprised a recall effort was started?
Rose: No, I was not surprised that a recall petition was started. There are some very passionate and outspoken people in our community who have voiced their opinion at council meetings, so I knew that the council’s actions were not in agreement by some. I heard rumors about the petition long before actual paperwork was turned in.
Do you have a response to each of the three items listed on the Statement of Intent to Circulate Recall Petition?
1. Alderman Rose’s actions have proven to be hostile to business and industry in Clintonville.
Rose: None of my actions have been “proven hostile” to any business. If one were to look at my voting record, I’ve always supported local business. I’ve voted for the distribution of funds through TIF incentives and loans for a number of business interests, among other pro-business actions. For the petitioner to assume that investigating the city administrator has a direct connection to local business is misleading. Local private businesses are a completely separate entity and operate independently from local government.
2. Alderman Rose’s actions have incited divisiveness within the community.
Rose: I have not incited any divisiveness. People who have lived in Clintonville are well aware that the divisiveness circling our city administrator goes back many years. There have been two separate citizen petitions and prior council votes to remove the city administrator long before my time on council. I personally became aware of the divisiveness in 2009, but I now know it goes back much further.
3. Alderman Rose breached his fiduciary duty by voting to replace a competent municipal attorney with an inexperienced relative of two council members.
Rose: My “fiduciary duty” means to properly take care of city monies. Our previous city attorney came at a much higher cost, compared to the one we have now, and with what neighboring cities were paying their city attorneys. So I went with the lower cost option, which is what taxpayers should want. This isn’t a breach of a fiduciary duty at all.
The fact that there are close relations with council members is a non-issue in my opinion, since she is a professional working in a professional capacity. We live in a small city and we have to accept the fact that close relatives may be seen working side by side. I also disagree with the accusation that the city attorney is inexperienced. She has been practicing law for a number of years now, and she passed the state bar exam on the first try. She is a very intelligent and competent person.
What do you intend to do if enough signatures are collected?
Rose: I have been true to my constituents since day one. I’ll continue to work for them as we mull through the recall election process, taking it one step at a time.