Sandusky commissioners get feisty over police chief search

City commissioner Pervis Brown Jr. defended himself against an accusation that he botched the search for a new police chief by refusing to consider any officers with present or past associations with the Perkins Township Police Department.
Aug 13, 2012


City commissioner Pervis Brown Jr. defended himself against an accusation that he botched the search for a new police chief by refusing to consider any officers with present or past associations with the Perkins Township Police Department. 

“I am concerned over the numerous phone calls I received this (past) week regarding the exclusion of certain candidates from a geographical location,” commissioner Diedre Cole said during Monday's commission meeting, suggesting Brown snubbed the Perkins officers because the Perkins Police Department had investigated or arrested Brown’s son, Pervis Brown III, on several occasions.

Cole's assertion led to a heated 30-minute exchange involving Cole and commissioners Brown and Jeff Smith, who defended the decision to exclude the Perkins officers without explaining why they were excluded. 


Get Tuesday's Register for more on this story. 





 Mr. Brown is just using one of his perks as a city commissioner.

Get over it.


For Ms Cole to actually admit she solicited other officers to submit their resumes is just unbelievable. If anyone tainted the group, it was Ms. Cole.  


If Cole follows past behavior on the commission, she will receive negative press and do a complete turn around and support what she was previously opposed to.


If you want to get feisty about the police chief search, get feisty about 2 committee members having criminal records. One for Domestic Violence, the other for Theft while employed in Muni court. Don't believe... check the record


Ms. Cole behaved badly in promising to hire someone as police chief, which is way beyond her scope of authority.  And in calling fellow commissioners liar for calling her out on it. 

Excluding anyone closely associated with the former Perkins police chief seems like good common sense.

Let the process move forward.  Make a decision.

Regarding the discussion about studying the relocation of city hall......common sense tells you bringing the numbers of people visiting city hall into the central business district will add to the resurgence of our downtown.   I applaud Mr. Smith for raising the topic and urge the commission to consider the idea at their strategy session October 1st. 

The sale of the present city hall site along with support from area foundations and local donors might make the move affordable. 

And turning the present city hall site into a taxable development would add to the tax base and spur the comeback of the Meigs Street area.  Of course, all while preserving the public's access to the waterfront.

T. A. Schwanger

Re: Reader

   Relocation of City Hall__ Commissioner Smith's reading of a prepared statement at Monday's commission meeting supporting the relocation of City Hall to downtown is a clear indication he is indeed being influenced by a small group that has been attempting to relocate City Hall since the 1990s.  I'm surprised Commissioner Smith, an outspoken supporter of the defunct 2006 Marina District Project at Battery Park, waited this long to promote his hidden agenda for running for commission.

  Relocating City Hall a mere few bocks from its present location should be based out of total community necessity not a want to impact a particular demographic area of the City. According to news reports, and personal observations, the downtown area is well on its way to flourishing without relocating City Hall. The long discussed idea of opening a college branch downtown, apparently well on its way to becoming a reality, will create further positive impacts.






Mr Schwanger.....Commissioner Smith's idea on relocating city hall was not to move it  a mere few blocks.  If you were thinking Adams Jr. high you were wrong.  That is not the location to which he was goning to refer. I happen to know that for a fact. 

I am intested to know what college branch will be moving into the Adams building as so many of them have campuses within driving distance of Sandusky already?



And were there any more explosions after we left and what did you say after we left last night?

Swamp Fox

Why was the chosen candidate of Ms. Coles not given the Perkins Chief job?   Answer the end of the felon chief's inner circle.

Home Boy

So, what is Mr. Brown's side iof the 'story'? Why DID he exclude possible canditates forn the PPD??

Just Asking

Ms Cole stated she had gotten calls saying residents of Perkins need not apply.

None of the three officers associated with the PPD live in Perkins.  Last I knew Matthews lived in the City or at least he did when first going to Hocking College.  IMO he has too much baggage and is more of a follower than a leader.  After all he let McClung talk him into filing that lawsuit and other questionable things.  

Also IMO he was given a chance to go through the Perkins evaluation just to be certain no one could say that the Trustees who at the time include Dwelle had just said no to him.  As it turned out the assessment center results were probably what took him out of the mix.

So in the end the committee got it right on him.  .

As for the other too.  IMO one may be qualified while the other is definitely not.  But the one that may be qualified I believe filed after the original deadline.  So why did he have to be talked into filing? 

But why pay for them to come in for an interview?  Maybe relocation expenses for the one you hire, but just to come for an interview I don' think so.

Just Asking

Is there going to be a video of last night's meeting?


 Welcome to Sandusky Ms. Cole.   Anyone want to take bets on how long it takes before she goes elsewhere?



I think the meeting will be aired on channel 81 on cable .... sometime this evening....and again next Monday at 8:30 p.m.

Worth watching.....


"Reader" is incorrect about the airings of the city commission meeting.  It airs 8:30 the night of the meeting and the next day on Tuesday, it airs at 5:00 p.m. and the following Monday at 7:00 p.m.  You can also call down to city hall and request a DVD of the meeting and for a $1.00 they will run it off for you as it is a public record which anyone can request. You have to see it to believe what happened.  It is a shame the Register doesn't live stream this anymore.  I hope the Register will reconsider doing it once again. 

Julie R.

I just happened to tune in right about the time Diedre Cole was calling one of the commissioners a liar. I thought I was hearing things............. 


Tim Schwanger....please, QUIT HOLDING OUR CITY BACK!!!!!  You and your group have done nothing but impede progress, and then turn around and complain about how nothing is getting done.  Instead of constantly criticizing those who HAVE BEEN ELECTED and are trying to use our tax dollars wisely, why not put your effort into actually HELPING Sandusky?  You and Sharon Johnson are so worried about the shoreline....why not HELP the small staff we have by looking for grants, asking for donations, going out there and picking up garbage, etc.  What qualifies YOU to be a constant critic?

Do you not realize that City Hall is an albartoss around the necks of taxpayers?  It's too large for our needs, is costly to maintain, needs a significant amount of renovating, and is an awful use for that piece of land.  I applaud Commissioner Smith for recognizing this, and looking for ways to move City Hall so that parcel may possibly generate taxes AND give me and my family a place to go for entertainment!

I only wish more commissioners had the intelligence to STOP listening to you, and the VISION to move this City forward.

T. A. Schwanger

RE: Sandusky Mom and Reader

  The best answer I have for you both is we can agree to disagree. 

   If downtown Sandusky was currently at the top of Ohio's most vibrant downtown list you would both still be screaming about how it's vital to move City Hall downtown and build condos and hotels on the waterfront. Why? Just to prove it can be not because it needs to be.

  If SOSP and others don't keep an eye on protecting the waterfront, who will?  Commissioners Smith and Farrar?

   Funny how the commissioners supporting this not so new idea of relocating City Hall are claiming the current building is "too large for our needs" today yet 5 years ago they claimed "city hall is cramped".  

  Wise use of tax dollars?  Recall the financing of the Service Complex on Cement Ave?  A $1 million project turned into a $7 million project.

  Let's have coffee downtown sometime and we can personally observe the private dollars being spent in a downtown well on its way to flourishing without the Marina District Project or a relocated City Hall.

  Sandusky Mom the next time a clean-up and painting of the Sandusky Bay Pavilion is planned I will place a notice in the newspaper so you can join in.

  Also, please visit Sandusky's new mini-park located at the foot of Shelby Street thanks to the efforts of a local Eagle Scout, Save Our Shoreline Parks, Panera Bread in Perkins and money, goods and services provided by local groups and individuals. No need to apologize. Just investigate first before you decide not to practice your own preaching.


T. A. Schwanger

Pres; SOSP




To T. A. Schwanger

Sandusky's downtown is not at the top of Ohio's most vibrant downtown what's your point ??????

What's your problem with the potential development of the present city building site as long as waterfront access is preserved and protected ???????

The entire city is aware of the need to preserve the public access to the waterfront.  Don't you think any development is possible with that access included ??????

How did you and Sharon ever let that Service Complex project get so out of hand ??????

You need to realize there are those who love this city just as much as you, yet we have different opinions on what's the best route to the city's future.


T. A. Schwanger

READER: I'll spell it out again. You and others would clamor over a false need to move City Hall downtown even if Sandusky's downtown was at the top of Ohio's most vibrant list--- just to prove you can.

Now you've been around long enough to understand this issue, but I'll review.

Many Ohio, national and international cities with waterfronts realized many years ago "best land use practice" is private development a few yards away from the waterfront--what we at SOSP refer to as "private development across the street". Sound familiar? In order of geographical importance, the concept is--the waterfront, public gathering space(s), the main transportation route (in this case E. Water Street or Meigs Street) then private development. If you remember we tagged the Marina  District Project the Great Wall of Condos Project because it created significant obstructions to Sandusky Bay.

"The Banks" in Cincinnati, Ohio and Louisville Kentucky's Waterfront Development Corporation are examples. Check it out at GOOGLE. When we showed the Louisville Development Corporations CEO the Marina District Project Plans he had to sit down and catch his breath out of disbelief.

Take a day trip to Windsor, Ontario. Our friends to the north get it. A miles long park along the waterfront followed by streets and private development.  I'll give you a $100 bucks for the slots and you can keep half. I'll donate mine to the Sandusky Bay Pavilion.

So you see, it's not myself or others opposed to relocating City Hall and protecting century old parks and public access from private land grabbing holding back this city. It's the 'lost in the last century' past and two present City Commissioners and what we call the town oligarchy holding us down.

T. A. Schwanger

Pres; SOSP



Mr. Schwanger, rest assured I am not part of any oligarchy .....not a business owner, not from a local family of wealth or influence.  Just an ordinary citizen weary of the tyranny of your group of anti development, anti progress bullies. 


Mr. Schwanger, if Sandusky's downtown was vibrant, there would be no empty spaces  available to consider moving the city hall into.

Are you so caught up with yourself that you're determined to prevent any relocation just because you can ?



Reader - You clearly miss the point.  By revitalizing the shoreline people would be drawn (pull marketing) downtown.  It is unlikely that there will ever be a resurgence of retail downtown but the increase in traffic created by shoreline access and improvement would create demand for restaurants and entertainment venues. 

One more thing Reader.  Tim Schwanger has no ego and to imply that he does is malicious.  I know Tim and his selfless work for this City should be admired. 


Tim Schwanger has no ego ?


" The increase in traffic created by shoreline access and improvement would create demand for restaurants and entertainment venues. "

I  enjoy visiting Shoreline Park on a nice winter day and enjoying the winter views of the bay and Cedar Point.

There's nobody around. 



Remember when one of the proposals for the transient marina was greeted with derision because it included a restaurant on the outer end of the project ?

It finally took a restaurant entrepreneur to breath a little life into the marina.

Until then there were only gulls and geese.

T. A. Schwanger

READER: I want to make it clear to you and everyone on this comment page I realize my attempts at appeasing Reader are in vein. However, I feel it is important to respond to his/her comments hoping to reach others.

I have supplied below a link to the Louisville Waterfront Development Corporation's web-page. It provides some stunning photos of what "best land use practice" is all about. Please open.+


The below is a rendition of the proposed "The Banks Project" in Cincinnati. Note the "public open spaces" between the two stadiums with main transportation between the open space and private development.


What's with this City Commission?  The building is too small, the building is too large, the building needs repairs, the budget is in deficit, the police commissioner isn't hired.  I don't have much occassion to visit City Hall but when I do it appears to be ok.  Someone mentioned on this blog that private entities were willing to contribute to building a new city hall, well let them make repairs to the current facility.  With the property tax base dwindling I don't understand how the commissioners could even consider replacement of the current building. Is this new discussion is related to the sale of public lands on the waterfront for private development?  I thought that was a settled matter.  If it is not, then I will do what I can to oppose any sale and support Tim Schwanger opposing this so called "development" again. Our City should intensify efforts to improve the shoreline (see Tim's comments) and make it more accessable to City residents and visitors.  If you want to market our City do so by pulling people in to relax and enjoy our biggest asset.  The very last thing we should do is give the shoreline away to private development.  


re: T. A. Schwanger comment

Don't you think a revitalized downtown and a tax paying development on the present city hall site will benefit the city as a whole ?

If we always do what we have always done, we'll always get what we already have.

Your constant opposition to progress has stifled this city.



I was AT that meeting last night.  What this story does not tell you is that Mr Icsman read what the PROCESS is for selecting the candidates and the committe is FOLLOWING it to the letter of the law. If the committee was doing wrong, it would have been told LONG before this. 

That is something major being left out here. A lot of ducked heads were seen during that reading, including that of Ms Cole.

It was a shameful sight at that meeting to see Ms Cole admit that is the City Commissioner's job to solitite people to be the chief of police.  And here all this time I thought it was there duty to run the city of Sandusky to the best of their ability.....what a shame.  Apparently someone should sit her down and explain her job to her. 

Why would you wait this long to bring up objections to a committee and how it is being run until the 11th hour?  I can guess?  Here is my GUESS....1). because you may have made some promises you cannot keep 2.)  Your person didn't make the final cut and you are upset about that.  3.) you have no control over the final selection of the top people and you can't handle it.  4.) you think the commissioners should be allowed to have their "say" on who should be on the short list and you don't like it.  

I could go on and on.  But whatever her reason, it was a shameful display by a sitting city commissioner who obviously has an agenda and backed up by another sitting city commissioner who obviously has an agenda (and one, I might add whom I used to respect up until last night).

You do NOT sit there and call people "LIARS" like she did in an open meeting. "mistaken" perhaps, but not "liars".  Now is understand why the SR sometimes gets upset with the commission for not doing anything.  They are too busy snipping at each other.  They really do.  And that is pretty evident. 

Whatever their "beef" is with this process, this committee is doing what is right, fair and necessary under the rules of this city and its charter. 

I feel badly for Mr Brown.  I am certain that whatever the committee of five is doing they certainly do NOT have to answer to the commission for their work.  They were charged with this responsibility and now, because TWO people on the commission do not like what they see so far, those two are crying foul.  Mr Brown should be commended for his work, not criticised.  I think Ms Cole or Mr Pole may have wanted this job and didn't get it. Mr Brown did and he is the right one for the job. 

Grow up....even your own LEGAL EAGLE explained it to you and said they were right.  So you best take a lesson, Ms Cole.   

You claimed all kinds of things last night but brought not ONE shred of evidence with you.   Most people when they are going to argue a point, bring proof.  You brought none.  And you leveled some nasty comments.  Where is the proof? 

You took a terrible couple of jabs at Mr. Brown, but you couldn't prove one bit of what you said.  Mr Icsman was really saying what he did to YOU and to Mr Pool.  The committee is doing just fine without you and Pool getting in their way.  The committee does not owe you any explanation of a thing. 

Like it or not the decisions are made now and the five will be tested by the Association of Police.  That is how it should be.  So all your so called checking is for nothing (of course you brought nothing to prove any of what you were saying). 

Then it goes to three from the committee's decision based on the results and recommendations of the testing. Ms Ard will make the final decision after that. 

So you really have nothing to say and nothing more you can do. 

Or, I am wrong about that.  There is something you can owe Mr Brown and Mr Hammond and Mr Smith a HUGE apology for calling them LIARS in a public meeting. 

That was totally inexcusable. 

After are supposed to represent this City and its people. 


It amazes me how the Register print article focused on the allegation that Mr. Brown had it in for the Perkins applicants because of his son's run ins with law enforcement in the township.  The reason for the alleged exclusion of Perkins applicants never came up at the meeting.

Anyone who has watched the commission meeting on cable came away with the foolishness of Ms. Cole raving about the process being compromised when she made no bones about her hopes to fire Chief Lang and fill the position with her favored candidate.  Two commissioners, Mr. Smith and Mr. Hamilton, both attested to having heard that plan from Ms. Cole's mouth last November.

Mr. Brown came across as having done what he was assigned to with a committee to narrow the list of candidates to 3 to present to Manager Ard for a hiring decision.

Maybe the Register doesn't care to air the commission meetings live on this web site so the newspaper may present their slant on what goes on ???????

Ms. Cole came across as a blustering fool at the meeting.

Watch for yourself next Monday at  7 p.m. on cable channel 81.


to right you are about your assessment of Ms Cole.  I truly felf sorry for Mr Brown on Monday night and after seeing what the paper printed today about his son, I felt even worse for him. That mess had nothing whatsoever to do with the committee, their work OR the people of Sandusky and the choices this committee is making for a police chief. 

I think this whole ruckus that Ms Cole and fiends are making is a simple matter of personal agenda gone terrible wrong and it stinks like so much unfrigerated fish. (MY OPINON....just saying)

When is this city going to stop putting up with the personal agendas of so many people getting in the way of progress for this City?  When is it going to start working together for the good of this city ?  It certainly cannot do  it with this kind of nonsense going on at commission meetings such as Monday night. 

I think Ms Cole owes the committee and Mr Brown an apology. 

You are SPOT ON with your anaolgy with what you are saying.  I was there and saw exactly what you are talking about.  You couldn't be more accurate. 


 Are you all happy know? You got what you voted for.

Just Asking

Today's e-Paper says that there is a video of the meeting.  Where is it?  How do you view it?

By the way while I did not hear it first hand, I heard over a month ago that Ms. Cole was pushing for Matthews to be the new Chief.  And that he was telling people that he would be the next chief.  It would be really nice for someone that heard it first hand to step up and set the record straight as to who promised what.  


Commissioners Smith and Hamilton both attested to having a conversation with Ms. Cole last November when she told them of her plan to have Chief Lang fired and replace him with her candidate, who would hold the job temporarily for a year, then be hired as permanent chief.

Now who tainted the process ?

Matt Westerhold

Thanks for the comments Reader, Just Asking and others who have offered their thoughts. The Register staff is working today to "render" the video to a format that can be posted here. That process is a little bit challenging only because the video format used by the city to record the meeting is not compatible with the format used to post videos here at It requires a conversion process. We're working on that and expect to be able to post the meeting video today. 

During the meeting commissioner Wes Poole asked commissioner Pervis Brown Jr. whether there was any documentation of the work the search committee had done. I don't believe commissioner Brown answered whether there was, or if he would provide it to city commission. Any notes from the various committee meetings would likely be part of the public record, so I don't quite understand why Brown would not provide those notes and other documentation to a city commissioner when he asked, or why he didn't answer that question directly.

What commissioner Cole might have said about the process back in November, and what commissioner Smith said she said, or commissioner Hamilton said she said, really, is nothing more than a "he said, she said." The recollections provided by Smith and Hamilton do seem similar, but I'm just not sure it's relative to the important questions Cole and Poole raised during the meeting. I recall commissioner Cole saying to me she did want local candidates to apply, and she has been a past supporter of hiring local candidates, or at least providing them an opportunity to interview for open positions. I do not recall my conversations with Cole the same way Smith and Hamilton are remembering previous conversations they might have had with her, but, again, I just don't see how any of that matters.

It seems obviouis to me Cole was correct to encourage local candidates to apply given the questions that have arisen about the qualifications of some of the candidates selected for the "Top Five" cut.

The "he said, she said" banter during the meeting strikes me as nothing more than a distraction from the legitimate questions and concerns raised about the search process. It would be better, in my opinion, to simply answer those questions. The biggest ones, it seems, is were members past and present of the Perkins Police Department excluded from consideration for the Sandusky police chief position? Did commissioner Brown mandate that?  And why? 

The debate on this topic during Monday's city commission meeting got a bit heated, but it was a good debate. As a resident, I'm glad commissioner Cole brought this topic to the public forum. The search for a police chief is just too important, in my opinion, to simply push forward without a thorough and vetted process. I was disappointed the questions Cole and Poole posed weren't answered, and also disppointed with Smith's and Hamilton's avoiding the questions with the "he said, she said" banter. 

With that said, commissioner Smith also brought a matter to the public forum regarding whether it makes more sense to invest in the current City Hall building or whether the city should look again at a possible re-location. As a resident, I was pleased Smith brought it forward for a public dialogue, and diappointed he did not get much support for his suggestion a committee be formed to look at it. But perhaps, given the questions about Brown's police cheif search committee, a committee on the City Hall topic might not be the best avenue for that review. I hope Smith continues to push the question in the public forum and the city is able to provide a clear balance sheet for residents on the pros and cons of both options. It's a worthy topic, in my opinion. 



The SR editor's observation that we should let data drive the decision on repair/replace City Hall is a rational response to the situation.  Having said that - who develops the data and performs the analysis is frankly just as important.  It really doesn't take a genius to "statistically" show "facts" that lead to a bad conclusion.  Anyone remember "GIGO" or garbage in, garbage out.  


 Sharon Johnson, noted watchdog of city business and a blogger on this site, commented during the public participation portion of the meeting.  Mrs. Johnson attended many of the police search committee meetings and was satisfied the deliberative process was fair and balanced.                                                                        


@ reader......and Mr Icsman would totally agree with her.  In fact, he read the criteria from the city charter after Mr Pool and Ms Cole went on their rant....but it was obvious they were not listening. 


 This goes to show what happens when a person is elected because of their media exposure, instead of real qualifications. It is very obvious that the SR is on "Dee's" side, even though she is wrong. Time for somebody to get a "real job". I would prefer mine supersized please.

Licorice Schtick

The Wednesday morning pulp version of the Register promised online video on this. It it here somewhere?



@ Mr Westerhold and others.....since I WAS at the meeting and heard the conversations quite clearly...Ms Cole was on a roll about what she wanted.  She attacked, quite clearly, the committee and Mr. Brown. She also quite clearly stated that she had spoken to Mr. Hamilton about having Mr. Brown removed from the committee because she did not like the way he was "running it".  Mr. Hamilton "refused" to do so.  It was at that point that all holy "he%% " broke lose.  She also brought up the so called "lack of credendials" of candidates but has not brought them up to the committee at any of the meetings.  She has stated she has "looked into the backgrounds of candidates" but brought no proof of same.  She said she got phone calls about so called statements about "if you were from Perkins you need not apply".  At that point, Mr Pool joined in with virtually the same song and dance.  But neither commissioner could bring proof of their complaints. 

Mr Smith brought up the conversations with Ms Cole and her attempts to get Mr Mathews placed in as Police Chief and get Chief Lang fired.  She called him a liar.  Mr Hamilton stated the same conversation with her...stating where and when it took place....she called him a liar.  Mr. Brown began to state the same..she called HIM a liar.  In short....all are liars but her.  (This can be verified by seeing the tape). 

Mr Brown took all this in and was a true gentleman and true statemsman.  HOWEVER, you can not say the same for Ms Cole, who acted like she didn't get her own way and was not happy about it. 

Even Mr Icsman stated the committee was doing what they should, that should be enough ....END OF STORY.....The council set the committee to do a job.  Why do they now need to have an explanation from the committe of what is going on and how they made their decisions.  Because Cole and Pool have their shorts is a bunch?  Too bad.  They gave them the live with it. 

When the legal council of the city tells you they are following the rules....LIVE WITH IT. 

Just because a select few.....Cole and POOL don't like the outcome or the SR thinks they should have notes on their decison and the legal council tells you otherwise....LIVE WITH IT> 

For once.....let a committee, selected and authorized to do a job, given the authority to make a decsion and doing their work....albeit in the process of finishing their work.....let them along. 

Forget about stirrring the pot.  Forget about making the story or lighting the fire. 

Your  going to get a big story and get your new Chief.  That will satisfy most everyone.  But you can't please EVERYONE. 

Some people in this town need to grow up.  Yes, Ms Cole....your job is NOT to solicit it is to govern.  Have you not learned your job yet?   It is to govern.  To make decisions WITH your other commissioners NOT on your own. 


Diedre is a native of the District of Columbia and relocated to Sandusky in the early 90's. A BGSU Firelands alumn, Diedre pursued studies in electrical/electronic engineering technology concentrating in digital science. Since then, she has continued the path of higher education studying physics, mathematics and organic science. She is currently pursuing a terminal degree in global business management.

Diedre is the founder of a small organic manufacturing firm in Sandusky. Married in 1997 to a Sanduskian, Diedre and her husband are raising one grandchild, are the parents of two adult children and three other grandchildren.

  That being said. Where is the business that Diedre operates. I would like to visit and maybe purchase some product. Be smart, buy local, right? I was going to stop at her house, but then I remembered that you cannot run a business out of a house owned by Metro Housing. IMO this may qualify as a "questionable" concern.


I had heard the same comment that Ms Cole had a  scheme about firing Chief Lang a while ago but I dismissed it.  After hearing what both Hamilton and Smith stated, I have a real problem with what Ms Cole  wanted to accomplish. The only reason that this was aired out in the public is because the Sunshine Law doesn't allow you to go into executive session to reprimand another fellow commissioner.  After calling Smith and Hamilton a liar, Ms Cole then proceeded to apologise so what does that tell you?  I think Ms Cole definitely crossed the line with her scheme of a plan and she  has the gull to criticize Brown for tainiting the process?   What is right and what is wrong here?   


@darkhorse,   I don't remember hearing Ms Cole apologize to either Mr. Hamilton or Mr. Smilth at that meeting but we did leave before it was completely finished.  HOWEVER, I do believe that Ms Cole has her own agenda and in some ways she was backed by Mr. Poole which I found most distuburbing.

Mr. Brown did NOT deserve the thrashing he took at her "mouth" nor did he deserve the kind of treatment he had to listen to by her continual thrashing.  I doubt she heard a word that Mr Icsman said when he told the entire commission that the committee was doing EXACTLY what they were supposed to be doing according to the City Charter.  It was pretty obvious that both she and Mr Poole didn't want to hear that.

It is sad that you appoint people who volunteered and a City Commissioner who is "willing' to do the job, have them work all this time and then, at the eleventh hour, start hammering away at them, because you don't like the outcome.  It was OBVIOUS  the reasoning,  So much so, that Mr Brown was using everything within his power to remain a statesman and he deserves credit for doing so. 

She, on the other hand, does not.  She deserves no credit.  She does not know the boundries of her job nor the reason for which she was elected.  She does not know why she is there.  It is sad.