Accusations that a member of the planning commission is ineligible to serve under state law arose during last week’s Oxford Township Board meeting.

Officials voted 7-0 to reappoint Tom Berger to the planning commission for a three-year term beginning Jan. 1, 2019 and ending Dec, 31, 2021. He’s served on the board since 2004.

But some members of the audience claimed Berger cannot serve on the commission because he is also the township building official.

Berger was appointed to perform the building official’s duties at the Oct. 12, 2007 township board meeting. Forty percent of each building permit fee is used to compensate Berger for his services.

“At the very least having someone that is paid by the township, especially a building (official), would be a huge conflict of interest on the planning (commission),” said Oxford Township resident Ginny Benson. “And I do believe that it says something about it in state law.”

Edward J. McCabe, an attorney representing horse country residents, agreed.

“You should not, because it is against the law, appoint the individual who is a member of the staff of the township,” he told the board.

“He’s not staff,” replied township Supervisor Bill Dunn.

“I have an opinion letter (stating) that it’s not a problem,” Dunn added.

“Who the hell did you get the opinion letter from? Bozo?” retorted McCabe.

“We got it from our township attorney,” Dunn replied.

A copy of the Sept. 21, 2018 opinion letter from township attorney Gary Rentrop was given to this reporter.

In it, Rentrop states that a township employee cannot serve on the planning commission, but Berger “is not an employee” because he was appointed to his position.

He cited the Incompatible Public Offices Act which states a “public employee . . . does not include a person whose employment results from election or appointment.”

Rentrop went on to explain that even if the building official was considered an employee, Berger’s position on the planning commission would still not be considered a problem. Under state law, “the prohibition against a public employee holding 2 or more incompatible offices does not apply” because “Oxford Township’s population is less than 40,000,” the attorney wrote.

Rentrop’s opinion didn’t carry much weight with Benson.

“I know you’ve got your attorney that tells you what you want to hear, but I don’t think it’s necessarily the truth,” she told the board.