Former Roseland Town Council members David and Dorothy Snyder sat down with WSBT News to talk about their controversial time in office. (WSBT photo)
Story Created:
May 21, 2008 at 6:48 PM EDT
Story Updated:
May 21, 2008 at 7:33 PM EDT
They've battled the citizens of Roseland and been the controversial subject of a small town with big political problems.
For nearly three years, people have accused David and Dorothy Snyder of unfairly controlling their community. Today, the Snyders are out office, but not of town.
And they recently sat down with WSBT's Dustin Grove to talk about some of their most controversial decisions, the allegations people have made against them, and what's next.
"There were all these lies out there that there was money being made, that was all underhanded, 'They're crooks, they're crooks, we gotta get rid of them!'” Dorothy told WSBT News.
Dorothy claims much of the complaints against her and her husband David that made big headlines for nearly three years came from a small group of people.
"I mean they had a desire to not want us in office before we got married, before we were elected,” she said.
But could they see where people would view a married couple on a three-member council as potentially a conflict of interest?
"If you go back and look at our votes, granted we voted together most of the time, but I'd say 30 percent of the time she voted with Charley against me, which was at times, very frustrating!” laughed David.
But how do they respond to the fact that people have called them crazy over the years?
"I think you have to look at the source that it’s coming from,” said David.
"I think the crazy part was that they thought if we were intimidated, they thought if we were legally attacked, that we would quit,” Dorothy added. “Once they said that we were crooked, once they said that we were doing all these things for personal gain, etc. etc. you couldn't quit because for the rest of your life you would be the people that, 'Oh yeah, you must've done that because quit, you ran away, it must have been true.’”
The Snyders insist none of it was true and say they're proud of what they accomplished because they stayed, despite the controversy.
"There's a redevelopment commission set up, code was done, town was cleaned up,” David said.
But today, money in Roseland is tight. The town has paid thousands of dollars in legal fees — defending itself from a list of citizen lawsuits while the Snyders were in office. The lawsuits involved alleged civil rights violations and town code violations many say didn't make sense, like violations for having “In God We Trust” or “Support the Troops” signs without first getting a permit.
"They knew they couldn't do it,” David explained. “There was a way to do it and the way to do it was simple — you go in and you get a permit and it doesn't cost anything.”
“It was civil disobedience,” Dorothy said.
Both sides reached a settlement in 2006.
David says he takes no responsibility for the town’s financial problems, and Dorothy says they had no choice but to respond when they were sued. But critics still strongly disagree, saying the citations never needed to be issued in the first place.
Just this month, a review panel for Indiana's Real Estate Commission ruled preliminarily in favor of David Snyder regarding a complaint about his brokering a hotel deal while on the town council. They ruled it wasn’t a conflict of interest.
But he still faces legal trouble on another front. He's been in and out of jail three times in the last year for failing to meet monthly child support obligations for his two sons in Texas. The Snyders would not talk about David's child support case because they said it's still ongoing.
But you’ll soon be able to read about it all — they're writing a book.
Saturday, May 24 at 7:46 PM Truth wrote ...
Lies, Lies and More Lies The Snyders wouldn't know the truth if it walked up and slapped it in the face!! I find it curious that a judge over and over disagrees with the Snyder viewpoint and keeps throwing him in jail. I doubt that would be happening if he didn't continue to break the law by not supporting his children.