Writer inquires about accusations made against former business administrator and its toll on taxpayer money
Washington Township Solicitor Stuart Platt may cost the taxpayers more money. During a recent council meeting, Mr. Platt acted reckless when he exposed the former business administrator’s alleged actions in receiving monies that he is not entitled to. Instead of allowing the administration to resolve this issue in a private manner, he chose the irresponsible option of exposing the issue in a public forum.
I do not condone nor condemn the alleged former B.A.’s actions, but I am concerned that the taxpayers, for no fault of their own, may encounter another expense. Mr. Platt stated that the former B.A.’s employment with Washington Township was terminated on December 31, 2016. However, Mr. Platt also admitted that the former B.A. gained access to the municipal building on January 1, 2017, post-employment.
During the March 22 meeting, Mr. Platt singlehandedly took away my constitutional rights by shutting me down while I was addressing the administration. I simply sought clarification as to how and why a former township employee gained access to the municipal building after being terminated and on a day when the building is not open for business. If the allegation made by Mr. Platt is true and the former B.A. indeed gained access to the building after termination, then didn’t he commit the crime of breaking and entering? Shouldn’t this alleged crime have been reported to the authorities and prosecuted? Mr. Platt is apparently talking from both sides of his mouth, a trait politicians have perfected.
It seems that Mr. Platt is using the office for personal vendettas. If, and when, this case becomes a lawsuit, taxpayers should not be responsible for financial damages as a result of Mr. Platt’s irresponsible actions. Instead, Mr. Platt should be responsible for any financial and personal penalties imposed by the courts.
Giancarlo D’Orazio
