Mr Manges indicates the meeting room was not locked at any time during the July 24 meeting.
I suppose the door wasn't physically locked like one locks their door at night but having the police and the sergeant at arms guarding the door and refusing entry is the same thing. Manges' argument here is simply semantics and he knows it.
Mr Manges indicates he personally visited the area where the overflow crowd gathered and did not believe it to be eighty to one hundred as you indicate but between twenty and forty.
This might be true when Manges came out and saw what was going on but by then I'm sure many people, including myself, had already left. To estimate there might have been only 20 people is laughable.
Mr Manges further indicates he is not aware of any protests related to the overflow into the hall
Here Manges is indirectly calling me a liar. There were several witnesses that can corroborate that I went and personally asked the sergeant at arms to allow me into the meeting. I was refused entry. I also posted photographic evidence of Wayne Township Trustee Rick Stevenson discussing the matter with the police and the sergeant at arms. If Manges is "not aware" of such protests then it is due to his own ignorance and not because they didn't happen.
He indicates he observed frequent and fluid movement in and out of Room 200
Sure he did. Whenever somebody from the administration or the press wanted to go in or out they were freely allowed to do so. The rest of the common folk were not. We were on a one in, one out policy.
Mr Manges further asserts that the overflow crowd was only present for the committee sessions and that the room was not filled to capacity for the regular meeting.
Ok so you only violated the law for half the meeting and only because the citizenry gave up. Congratulations on partially abiding by the law through attrition. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by Manges' distortions after Mike Sylvester exposed him for what he is...