Butler Admits He Failed to Inform Council About Consequences of Master Agreement Passage

[Brian Essi]

But to get back to my question: does Butler's "bunk" hold water?

The short answer is "NO".

It is manufactured.

[Lori Allen _]

Wake up people! With the exception of Dan O'malley, every member of council has been in on this deal from day one. Nobody hid anything from them. Just another BS excuse. Giving council the benefit of a doubt sidetracks the real issue. All this trusting and giving people second chances has not helped one bit, at least for now, the deal appears to have gone through.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Wake up people! With the exception of Dan O'malley, every member of council has been in on this deal from day one. Nobody hid anything from them. Just another BS excuse. Giving council the benefit of a doubt sidetracks the real issue. All this trusting and giving people second chances has not helped one bit, at least for now, the deal appears to have gone through.

Lori

I would say there are two groups, with the exception of Dan O'Malley.

Those that knew and planned, a very small group. But not limited to those only allowed in executive sessions.
Of course Executive Session rules never applied as there was no competitive bidding.

And...

Those that were outraged and upset, but understand when Ed and Mike let the horse out of the barn it was over, and for the future of the city, let's get together and create something out of this nightmare.

Like everything in life, it is complicated.

.

[Brian Essi]

Wake up people! With the exception of Dan O'malley, every member of council has been in on this deal from day one. Nobody hid anything from them. Just another BS excuse. Giving council the benefit of a doubt sidetracks the real issue. All this trusting and giving people second chances has not helped one bit, at least for now, the deal appears to have gone through.

Lori

I would say there are two groups, with the exception of Dan O'Malley.

Those that knew and planned, a very small group. But not limited to those only allowed in executive sessions.
Of course Executive Session rules never applied as there was no competitive bidding.

And...

Those that were outraged and upset, but understand when Ed and Mike let the horse out of the barn it was over, and for the future of the city, let's get together and create something out of this nightmare.

Like everything in life, it is complicated.

.

Jim,

If I understand your "two camp" theory, the second camp I would characterize as the "defeatist/press the easy button/sweep it under the rug/let's move" on camp.

One problem with your theory (which I'm saying I agree with) is that the second camp operated on a false premise--namely, "it was over."

This was not over when City Council given the task last year on January 15, 2015.

This was not over on when City Council made their decision December 21, 2015.

This was not over when Butler uttered "his opinion" on January 11, 2016 that this "is over".

This is not over on February 21, 2016.

This will not be over when the voters make their decisionthe referendum later this year.

This will not be over next year when Summers make his decision to resign and hands the reigns over to Dru Siley. For example, I have obtained public records that Dru Siley, in his capacity as a public employee, assembled documents to bolster Mike Summers' false campaign statements in last year's mayoral election.

This will not be over when the Court of Appeals renders it decision in Skindell v Madigan.

This will not be over when the judge or jury makes their decision Graham v. CCF.

It will be a long time before this is over.

I'm guessing that we are still early in the first quarter of the process--it has only been 13 months so far.

These things take years to resolve--the only way this resolves earlier is if Summers has a "come to Jesus" moment---he's not built that way so he will go down the long and hard way.

Count me in the "this ain't over" camp.

[Dan Alaimo]

But to get back to my question: does Butler's "bunk" hold water?

The short answer is "NO".

It is manufactured.

Brian, Thank you. I was very skeptical of Butler's statement, but throughout this process, small truths turned into big lies - "there's a trend to outpatient care" turned into "let's get rid of the inpatient care." So I wanted to be sure that there was no grain of truth underlying his statement. I trust your expertise, so now I know for sure.

[m buckley]

Bria Essi wrote:"Count me in "the this ain't over" camp."

Mr. Essi, You can count me in also. As far as the Summers administration is concerned, I won't reconcile with proven liars.
In the case of City Council, I refuse to reconcile with gutless wonders who decide the fate of the city in a broom closet.

[Lori Allen _]

Jim,
I agree we should all work together. However, it seems that even people who are on the same side refuse for one reason or another to work together. The biggest concern for me to deal with in the hospital ordeal is the appearance of this deal going further than just the City of Lakewood. I believe that this goes into the county and further. ( I have posted lots of documentation on this matter here on the Deck ). Even Judge O'Donnell appears to be corrupt. I think there are better ways to deal with this issue, but will not give the opposition any info here. IMO

[Brian Essi]

https://youtu.be/EKu1iB_3YSU?t=1h47m18s

So Council passed the Master Agreement without knowing that they it would create the legal quagmire we are now in?

Everyone knew that the referendum was coming.

Why didn't legal counsel tell City Council what was foreseeable?

Another good reason to vote Against 64!