City Hall Defends Sanctity of Contract to Close Hospital, But Not The Contract That Kept it Open

[Brian Essi]

City Council held a SPECIAL meeting on Thursday February 11, 2016.

The purpose of the SPECIAL meeting appeared to be to announce that it intended to fight the democratic process by vigorously defending and enforcing the terms of its new Master Agreement that closed the hospital and gave away $70M in public assets for free.

City Hall announced that even if the citizens' referendum is passed repealing the contract, City Hall will defend the contract in a lawsuit against the will of the people. In doing so, City Hall invoked its perceived constitutional rights under a 1986 case as being paramount to the constitutional rights of citizens to vote.

Back in May, 2015, the City and its Mayor were sued in a taxpayer lawsuit by citizens seeking to enforce a 1996 City contract that would have kept the hospital open and kept over 1,000 jobs in Lakewood. City Hall did not defend the 1996 contract--instead it fought against enforcement of its own contract and own citizens who were trying to enforce the contract--it continues that vigorous fight.

So City Hall is vigorously defending the sanctity of a contract that favors CCF and diminishes healthcare while it simultaneously vigorously fights against enforcement of its own contract that required CCF and others to provide real healthcare and jobs.

Huh?

Hmmmm.

[Michael Deneen]

There are mixed messages coming from the anti-hospital folks.
On one hand they want to pretend that the issue has been settled.
They claim that the public is behind them.
That is their rhetoric.

Their actions prove otherwise.
They are doing everything within their power to fight a vote on this matter, and going to great lengths to assist the Clinic in dismantling the hospital as quickly as possible.

[Bill Call]

It is a bit odd.

All across the County cities are fighting to get and retain jobs. The people of Avon are absolutely giddy with excitements at the prospect of two hospitals, new medical office buildings, rehab centers, surgery centers, a new college campus, thousands of new jobs, millions in tax revenue and hundreds of millions in economic activity.

In Lakewood? Our Mayor and Council are eager to lose what we have in exchange for a second rate medical office building and a fake emergency room.

When the voters exercised their right to challenge the actions of the Council and the Mayor the Mayor and Council announced their intention to ignore the law, ignore the vote and ignore the charter. Damn the facts and damn the people , full speed ahead!

And what of the $34 million in Lakewood Hospital Foundation cash and investments? What of the millions raised by the Foundation to fund the Vision for Tomorrow? It will be absorbed into the Cleveland Clinic Foundation to fund development in Avon, Strongsville, Medina and other areas across Northeast Ohio. What does Lakewood get? Nothing.

[james fitzgibbons]

It is a bit odd.

All across the County cities are fighting to get and retain jobs. The people of Avon are absolutely giddy with excitements at the prospect of two hospitals, new medical office buildings, rehab centers, surgery centers, a new college campus, thousands of new jobs, millions in tax revenue and hundreds of millions in economic activity.

In Lakewood? Our Mayor and Council are eager to lose what we have in exchange for a second rate medical office building and a fake emergency room.

When the voters exercised their right to challenge the actions of the Council and the Mayor the Mayor and Council announced their intention to ignore the law, ignore the vote and ignore the charter. Damn the facts and damn the people , full speed ahead!

And what of the $34 million in Lakewood Hospital Foundation cash and investments? What of the millions raised by the Foundation to fund the Vision for Tomorrow? It will be absorbed into the Cleveland Clinic Foundation to fund development in Avon, Strongsville, Medina and other areas across Northeast Ohio. What does Lakewood get? Nothing.

From Abraham Lincoln. A house divided against itself cannot stand!
The Mayor has divided this community and he is going to keep the pedal to the metal until Lakewood is totally broken.
Seems like Mayor Summers has lost touch with reality.

[Lori Allen _]

Where do the SLH attorneys stand on this? Have they contacted the feds yet for an investigation?

[cameron karslake]

It really is telling, how much our government here in Lakewood can't stand the people, especially the people that question their actions. That little speech from Kevin Butler the other night laid out their attitude (I'm sorry, the city's "opinion on the matter") for all to hear, that they intend to completely ignore whatever the people do to stop this disaster.

Kevin, I had no idea you held contractual obligations in such high esteem! You and the mayor certainly bent over backwards to help the CCF ignore, breech, and ultimately relinquish their responsibility under the 1996 definitive agreement. It seems you couldn't care less about the "old" agreement but the "new" agreement, well, it's written in stone! How two-faced can you get?

To hell with democracy, right Butler? Summers? Bullock? O'Leary?

You don't give a damn about wasting our money and you don't give a damn about how we vote either, nice!

Eventually, all of Lakewood's citizens will realize just how much you all despise the electorate. Thanks for making that crystal clear Kevin B!

[Lori Allen _]

Again, where are the SLH attorneys? I appear to be the only citizen in Lakewood that will stand up to this administration and tell it like I believe it is. I even have a police escort or city vehicle escort all around Lakewood every day. It's to the point now where I believe this could be called harassment. I don't blame our police or others. They are only doing what the safety director is telling them to do. Too bad Summers doesn't care as much about our heroin problem as he does wanting to know my business!

[Kevin D Young]

Gerry Phillips laid bare the real intentions of city officials last Thursday at the council meeting. Here is the video of his address. They are deceiving the citizens they serve.


https://youtu.be/vJ2GhJErUkw

[Lori Allen _]

Blah, blah, blah, where are your attorneys? Have you considered new counsel?

[Dan Alaimo]

Blah, blah, blah, where are your attorneys? Have you considered new counsel?

Lori,
I think you are the only one pushing this point and you are only doing it in online forums with limited reach. Do you expect people here to carry your message back to SLH? I'm not convinced you are right, so it won't be me.

You need to address them directly in some way.

[Michael Deneen]

The SLH legal team is very much aware of all the moving parts in this case.
They are a very sharp bunch that has spent countless hours on this.

I am not a lawyer, but I know they can't just do things like walk in and say "We want a new judge".

[Lori Allen _]

With all due respect, see http://www.americanbar.org/groups/profe ... ation.html

According to this:

A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality* might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to the following circumstances

Note the words "including, but not limited to". In other words, the reasons listed here are not the only circumstances that may require a judge to recuse himself from a case. Not to re-hash again, but:

1. The judge almost shares a property line with a defendant.
2. The judge has received campaign contributions from Joe Gibbons, a member of LHA, until recently. LHA is a defendant in this case.
3. The judge has received campaign contributions from several friends and known associates of defendants.

In addition to the Judicial Rules of Conduct prescribed by the American Bar Association, there is also case law pertaining to when judges must or should recuse themselves when it comes to campaign contributions.

According to https://www.ohiobar.org/ForPublic/Resou ... e-216.aspx :

If a party in a case believes the judge should be disqualified, the party may then ask the judge to step down, giving reasons for the request. If the judge declines, then the parties may file an affidavit of disqualification with the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, or, in the case of a municipal or county district judge, with the presiding judge of the common pleas court of that county.

In other words, a party can simply ask the judge to recuse themselves and give them the reasons. In my opinion, some of the reasons are quite compelling. If the judge declines, an affidavit of disqualification must be filed with the presiding judge of the county. How would it look if reasons were listed why the judge should recuse himself and he still refused? If the bar association caught wind of this, I suspect they would be suspicious.

Also according to https://www.ohiobar.org/ForPublic/Resou ... e-216.aspx ,the rules for recusal and disqualification seem quite narrow, with little wiggle room.

Now it has been almost a year since the case has been filed, which is plenty of time to gather evidence that raises red flags about the judge's impartiality (or lack thereof). This far into the case, it would be quite difficult to request a new judge now.

Dan,

With all due respect, why would I carry my message personally to SLH? I believe 90% of them read the Deck and could easily print out the information and use it accordingly. With all due respect, I would not subject myself to criticism, scrutiny, and denunciation by presenting it to SLH. As an additional note, I notice that you only appear to come after me here on the Deck.

I said that Bullock, Marx, O'Leary and Anderson would not be for the hospital. Nobody in SLH seemed to believed me and everybody appeared to believe I was crazy for thinking such a thought. Where are we now?

I can absorb all of the arrows. I am a big girl, I can handle it.

[m buckley]

I want to thank my councilperson Dan O'Malley for the integrity he showed in supporting a quick resolution to the Hospital vote. Mr. O'Malley's faith in the process and his willingness to allow democracy to run its course, stands in stark contrast to the obstructionist tactics practiced by Mr. O'Leary and Mr. Anderson. For the better part of a year, when given the opportunity to stand up and make a difference Mr. O'Leary and Mr. Anderson went scurrying to a back room at City Hall. Now given the opportunity to expedite a vote on the hospital, to give us all a voice, Mr. O'Leary and Mr. Anderson delay/deny in an attempt to insure that the Clinic can further degrade our hospital. Their contempt for the residents of Lakewood is alienating. Their willingness to roll over for the Clinic is gutless. Their attempt to hijack democracy is shameful.

[Brian Essi]

I want to thank my councilperson Dan O'Malley for the integrity he showed in supporting a quick resolution to the Hospital vote. Mr. O'Malley's faith in the process and his willingness to allow democracy to run its course, stands in stark contrast to the obstructionist tactics practiced by Mr. O'Leary and Mr. Anderson. For the better part of a year, when given the opportunity to stand up and make a difference Mr. O'Leary and Mr. Anderson went scurrying to a back room at City Hall. Now given the opportunity to expedite a vote on the hospital, to give us all a voice, Mr. O'Leary and Mr. Anderson delay/deny in an attempt to insure that the Clinic can further degrade our hospital. Their contempt for the residents of Lakewood is alienating. Their willingness to roll over for the Clinic is gutless. Their attempt to hijack democracy is shameful.

Mr. Buckley,

I agree that Dan O'Malley is the real deal and I give a big thanks to him as well from over here in Ward 2.

In the short time he spoke, he (1) expressed his thoughts clearly and succinctly; (2) allowed a citizen-- Terry Kilroy M.D.--to speak when President O'Leary had previously refused Dr. Kilroy that opportunity; and (3) asked thoughtful and precise questions directed to Director Butler that helped inform the public of the Director's theretofore withheld "opinions" on the calamity

What a contrast to the likes of blowhard Bullock who goes on and on and on and on and says nothing at all, attacks citizens with misinformation and downright lies and cuts citizens off in violation of their first amendment rights.

Lakewood is lucky to have Mr. O'Malley with his businesslike and considerate style.