SummersGate 5: Records Responses Expose Biggest City Hall Emergency Room Lie Of All

[Brian Essi]

On December 7, 2015 Councilman Ryan Nowlin made the following statement to sell the Master Agreement: “This proposal represents the only way to insure the uninterrupted delivery of emergency healthcare services in our city” He added that there was a “Very Real Danger….Worst Case Scenario…[of]…No Emergency Room and an empty shell of a building.” if the city did not pass the "emergency legislation" proposed that day.

https://youtu.be/lChNMhrAXCk?t=5m42s

Nowlin was not alone in these false claims about an ER in Lakewood: Summers, other Councilmembers and City officials all made similar statements that the Master Agreement was the "ONLY WAY" to insure an ER in Lakewood.

But Law Director Butler's responses to records requests on behalf of the city prove that everyone at City Hall failed to even try to secure another ER operator.

Below are the documents that prove the huge fraud on citizens led by Mayor Summers:

1. The only request for proposal (RFP) EVER issued by our city leaders was to hire an outside consultant to negotiate with the Clinic. So it was a done deal long ago.
2. While Metro was forced by powerful political and corporate interests to back down on an inpatient model—Metro nevertheless said it wanted to help Lakewood---Summers, et al never lifted a finger to even ask them for an ER FHC. A month after the “ONLY WAY” was signed, Summers admitted under oath that Metro had a longstanding interest in an outpatient facility in Lakewood--but Summers and City Hall never pursued that interests with Metro or anyone else. (See Metro's statements below).
3. The responses to records requests prove that Summers and the City leaders failed to issue any RFP to anyone concerning an ER, FHC and/or inpatient hospital.

So, the claim that a CCF ER and the Master Agreement was the "ONLY WAY" is the biggest lie of all about the ER.



And it is completely documented beyond any doubt.
From: "Butler, Kevin" <Kevin.Butler@lakewoodoh.net>
To: 'Brian Essi'
Cc: "Petrus, Jeannine" <Jeannine.Petrus@lakewoodoh.net>; "Strachan, Shannon" <Shannon.Strachan@lakewoodoh.net>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 2:29 PM
Subject: RE: Public Records Requests --PRR1 to PRR 173

Mr. Essi:
 
In No. 149 of your March 15, 2016 public record request, you ask for “All records, notes, and communications – electronic or otherwise – that reflect any request for proposal(s) issued by the City of Lakewood with respect to the Lakewood Hospital or the LHA.”
 
Based on the manner in which the City ordinarily maintains and access the public records it keeps, it was unable to identify records responsive to the request.  State ex rel Dehler v. Spatny, 127 Ohio St.3d 312, 2010-Ohio-5711; State ex rel. Morgan v. Strickland,  121 Ohio St.3d 600, 2009-Ohio-1901; State ex rel. Zauderer v. Joseph, 62 Ohio App.3d 752 (10th Dist. 1989).  The city does not organize records based on whether they “reflect any request for proposal(s) issued by the City,” or whether such a request is “with respect to the Lakewood Hospital or the LHA.”  Furthermore, because your request seeks all records with no date restriction, it is overbroad and thus denied. State ex rel. Glasgow v. Jones, 119 Ohio St.3d 391, 2008-Ohio-4788 (a request for all of a state representative’s work-related emails, texts, messages and correspondence for a six-month period was overbroad).
 
Because it seeks information “reflects” and is “with respect to” another thing, your request is vague, overly broad and/or ambiguous, and is therefore, to that extent, denied.  The Ohio Supreme Court has held that a public records request must describe the records desired with reasonable and sufficient clarity and not be overly broad and ambiguous. State ex rel. Morgan v. New Lexington, 112 Ohio St.3d 33, 2006-Ohio-6365, ¶29, quoting State ex rel. Fant v. Tober, 68 Ohio St.3d 117 (1993). Furthermore, a governmental office has no duty to “seek out and retrieve those records which would contain the information of interest to the requester.” Fant, 1993 Ohio App. LEXIS 2591 at *4 (8th Dist. Apr. 28, 1993); aff’d 68 Ohio St.3d 117 (1993). Finally, a public office is under no obligation to search for records containing selected information. State ex rel. Thomas v. Ohio State University, 71 Ohio St.3d 245 (1994).
 
Nevertheless, as a courtesy, we have endeavored to identify records that may be responsive to No. 149 of your request.  I have, to that extent, found and attached letters from Mayor Summers, dated May 18 and May 21, 2015, seeking MetroHealth’s response regarding Lakewood Hospital; and the healthcare consultancy RFP issued in April 2015.  We have not identified any other records that may be responsive to this request.  Thus, this completes our response to No. 149 of your March 15, 2016 request.
 
Best wishes,
 
Kevin M. Butler, Director of Law
City of Lakewood | Law Department
(216) 529-6034
kevin.butler@lakewoodoh.net


From: "Butler, Kevin" <Kevin.Butler@lakewoodoh.net>
To: 'Brian Essi'
Cc: "Petrus, Jeannine" <Jeannine.Petrus@lakewoodoh.net>; "Strachan, Shannon" <Shannon.Strachan@lakewoodoh.net>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 1:15 PM
Subject: RE: Public Records Requests --PRR1 to PRR 173

Mr. Essi:
 
In No. 180 of your May 13, 2016 public records request, you ask for “All correspondence and communications – electronic or otherwise – between any Lakewood City employee or official and any employee or official of the Metro Health System with respect to any proposal or discussion regarding the Lakewood Hospital or its assets during 2014, 2015 and 2016. This request includes any communication between any ex officio LHA official and any employee or official of the Metro Health System.”
 
Based on the manner in which the City ordinarily maintains and access the public records it keeps, it was unable to identify records responsive to the request.  State ex rel Dehler v. Spatny, 127 Ohio St.3d 312, 2010-Ohio-5711; State ex rel. Morgan v. Strickland,  121 Ohio St.3d 600, 2009-Ohio-1901; State ex rel. Zauderer v. Joseph, 62 Ohio App.3d 752 (10th Dist. 1989).  The city does not organize records based on whether they are “between any Lakewood City employee or official and any employee or official of the Metro Health System,” or whether they are “with respect to any proposal or discussion regarding the Lakewood Hospital or its assets.”  Furthermore, because your request seeks all communications during a three-year period of time it is overbroad and thus denied. State ex rel. Glasgow v. Jones, 119 Ohio St.3d 391, 2008-Ohio-4788 (a request for all of a state representative’s work-related emails, texts, messages and correspondence for a six-month period was overbroad).
 
Because it seeks information “with respect to” another thing, your request is vague, overly broad and/or ambiguous, and is therefore, to that extent, denied.  The Ohio Supreme Court has held that a public records request must describe the records desired with reasonable and sufficient clarity and not be overly broad and ambiguous. State ex rel. Morgan v. New Lexington, 112 Ohio St.3d 33, 2006-Ohio-6365, ¶29, quoting State ex rel. Fant v. Tober, 68 Ohio St.3d 117 (1993). Furthermore, a governmental office has no duty to “seek out and retrieve those records which would contain the information of interest to the requester.” Fant, 1993 Ohio App. LEXIS 2591 at *4 (8th Dist. Apr. 28, 1993); aff’d 68 Ohio St.3d 117 (1993). Finally, a public office is under no obligation to search for records containing selected information. State ex rel. Thomas v. Ohio State University, 71 Ohio St.3d 245 (1994).
 
Nevertheless, as a courtesy, we have endeavored to identify records that may be responsive to No. 180 of your request.  I have, to that extent, found the attached letters as records that may be responsive.  We have not identified any other records that may be responsive to this request.  Thus, this completes our response to No. 180 of your May 13, 2016 request.
 
Best wishes,
 
Kevin M. Butler, Director of Law
City of Lakewood | Law Department
(216) 529-6034
kevin.butler@lakewoodoh.net

2015 RFP City of Lakewood Hospital Negotiation - Outside Consultant RFP 04272015 (1).pdf

(121.62 KiB) Downloaded 139 times

May-June 2015 letter exchange with A. Boutros.pdf

(1.24 MiB) Downloaded 149 times

[Kevin D Young]

They are all lying. It has been proven beyond a doubt. This is a full blown scandal. Why exactly have they been lying? Who are the inside players who are seeing financial benefit in this?

[m buckley]

On December 7, 2015 Councilman Ryan Nowlin made the following statement to sell the Master Agreement: “This proposal represents the only way to insure the uninterrupted delivery of emergency healthcare services in our city” He added that there was a “Very Real Danger….Worst Case Scenario…[of]…No Emergency Room and an empty shell of a building.” if the city did not pass the "emergency legislation" proposed that day.

https://youtu.be/lChNMhrAXCk?t=5m42s

Nowlin was not alone in these false claims about an ER in Lakewood: Summers, other Councilmembers and City officials all made similar statements that the Master Agreement was the "ONLY WAY" to insure an ER in Lakewood.

But Law Director Butler's responses to records requests on behalf of the city prove that everyone at City Hall failed to even try to secure another ER operator.

Below are the documents that prove the huge fraud on citizens led by Mayor Summers:

1. The only request for proposal (RFP) EVER issued by our city leaders was to hire an outside consultant to negotiate with the Clinic. So it was a done deal long ago.
2. While Metro was forced by powerful political and corporate interests to back down on an inpatient model—Metro nevertheless said it wanted to help Lakewood---Summers, et al never lifted a finger to even ask them for an ER FHC. A month after the “ONLY WAY” was signed, Summers admitted under oath that Metro had a longstanding interest in an outpatient facility in Lakewood--but Summers and City Hall never pursued that interests with Metro or anyone else. (See Metro's statements below).
3. The responses to records requests prove that Summers and the City leaders failed to issue any RFP to anyone concerning an ER, FHC and/or inpatient hospital.

So, the claim that a CCF ER and the Master Agreement was the "ONLY WAY" is the biggest lie of all about the ER.



And it is completely documented beyond any doubt.
From: "Butler, Kevin" <Kevin.Butler@lakewoodoh.net>
To: 'Brian Essi'
Cc: "Petrus, Jeannine" <Jeannine.Petrus@lakewoodoh.net>; "Strachan, Shannon" <Shannon.Strachan@lakewoodoh.net>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 2:29 PM
Subject: RE: Public Records Requests --PRR1 to PRR 173

Mr. Essi:
 
In No. 149 of your March 15, 2016 public record request, you ask for “All records, notes, and communications – electronic or otherwise – that reflect any request for proposal(s) issued by the City of Lakewood with respect to the Lakewood Hospital or the LHA.”
 
Based on the manner in which the City ordinarily maintains and access the public records it keeps, it was unable to identify records responsive to the request.  State ex rel Dehler v. Spatny, 127 Ohio St.3d 312, 2010-Ohio-5711; State ex rel. Morgan v. Strickland,  121 Ohio St.3d 600, 2009-Ohio-1901; State ex rel. Zauderer v. Joseph, 62 Ohio App.3d 752 (10th Dist. 1989).  The city does not organize records based on whether they “reflect any request for proposal(s) issued by the City,” or whether such a request is “with respect to the Lakewood Hospital or the LHA.”  Furthermore, because your request seeks all records with no date restriction, it is overbroad and thus denied. State ex rel. Glasgow v. Jones, 119 Ohio St.3d 391, 2008-Ohio-4788 (a request for all of a state representative’s work-related emails, texts, messages and correspondence for a six-month period was overbroad).
 
Because it seeks information “reflects” and is “with respect to” another thing, your request is vague, overly broad and/or ambiguous, and is therefore, to that extent, denied.  The Ohio Supreme Court has held that a public records request must describe the records desired with reasonable and sufficient clarity and not be overly broad and ambiguous. State ex rel. Morgan v. New Lexington, 112 Ohio St.3d 33, 2006-Ohio-6365, ¶29, quoting State ex rel. Fant v. Tober, 68 Ohio St.3d 117 (1993). Furthermore, a governmental office has no duty to “seek out and retrieve those records which would contain the information of interest to the requester.” Fant, 1993 Ohio App. LEXIS 2591 at *4 (8th Dist. Apr. 28, 1993); aff’d 68 Ohio St.3d 117 (1993). Finally, a public office is under no obligation to search for records containing selected information. State ex rel. Thomas v. Ohio State University, 71 Ohio St.3d 245 (1994).
 
Nevertheless, as a courtesy, we have endeavored to identify records that may be responsive to No. 149 of your request.  I have, to that extent, found and attached letters from Mayor Summers, dated May 18 and May 21, 2015, seeking MetroHealth’s response regarding Lakewood Hospital; and the healthcare consultancy RFP issued in April 2015.  We have not identified any other records that may be responsive to this request.  Thus, this completes our response to No. 149 of your March 15, 2016 request.
 
Best wishes,
 
Kevin M. Butler, Director of Law
City of Lakewood | Law Department
(216) 529-6034
kevin.butler@lakewoodoh.net


From: "Butler, Kevin" <Kevin.Butler@lakewoodoh.net>
To: 'Brian Essi'
Cc: "Petrus, Jeannine" <Jeannine.Petrus@lakewoodoh.net>; "Strachan, Shannon" <Shannon.Strachan@lakewoodoh.net>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 1:15 PM
Subject: RE: Public Records Requests --PRR1 to PRR 173

Mr. Essi:
 
In No. 180 of your May 13, 2016 public records request, you ask for “All correspondence and communications – electronic or otherwise – between any Lakewood City employee or official and any employee or official of the Metro Health System with respect to any proposal or discussion regarding the Lakewood Hospital or its assets during 2014, 2015 and 2016. This request includes any communication between any ex officio LHA official and any employee or official of the Metro Health System.”
 
Based on the manner in which the City ordinarily maintains and access the public records it keeps, it was unable to identify records responsive to the request.  State ex rel Dehler v. Spatny, 127 Ohio St.3d 312, 2010-Ohio-5711; State ex rel. Morgan v. Strickland,  121 Ohio St.3d 600, 2009-Ohio-1901; State ex rel. Zauderer v. Joseph, 62 Ohio App.3d 752 (10th Dist. 1989).  The city does not organize records based on whether they are “between any Lakewood City employee or official and any employee or official of the Metro Health System,” or whether they are “with respect to any proposal or discussion regarding the Lakewood Hospital or its assets.”  Furthermore, because your request seeks all communications during a three-year period of time it is overbroad and thus denied. State ex rel. Glasgow v. Jones, 119 Ohio St.3d 391, 2008-Ohio-4788 (a request for all of a state representative’s work-related emails, texts, messages and correspondence for a six-month period was overbroad).
 
Because it seeks information “with respect to” another thing, your request is vague, overly broad and/or ambiguous, and is therefore, to that extent, denied.  The Ohio Supreme Court has held that a public records request must describe the records desired with reasonable and sufficient clarity and not be overly broad and ambiguous. State ex rel. Morgan v. New Lexington, 112 Ohio St.3d 33, 2006-Ohio-6365, ¶29, quoting State ex rel. Fant v. Tober, 68 Ohio St.3d 117 (1993). Furthermore, a governmental office has no duty to “seek out and retrieve those records which would contain the information of interest to the requester.” Fant, 1993 Ohio App. LEXIS 2591 at *4 (8th Dist. Apr. 28, 1993); aff’d 68 Ohio St.3d 117 (1993). Finally, a public office is under no obligation to search for records containing selected information. State ex rel. Thomas v. Ohio State University, 71 Ohio St.3d 245 (1994).
 
Nevertheless, as a courtesy, we have endeavored to identify records that may be responsive to No. 180 of your request.  I have, to that extent, found the attached letters as records that may be responsive.  We have not identified any other records that may be responsive to this request.  Thus, this completes our response to No. 180 of your May 13, 2016 request.
 
Best wishes,
 
Kevin M. Butler, Director of Law
City of Lakewood | Law Department
(216) 529-6034
kevin.butler@lakewoodoh.net

2015 RFP City of Lakewood Hospital Negotiation - Outside Consultant RFP 04272015 (1).pdf

May-June 2015 letter exchange with A. Boutros.pdf

bump.

[kate e parker]

1. The only request for proposal (RFP) EVER issued by our city leaders was to hire an outside consultant to negotiate with the Clinic. So it was a done deal long ago.

and? the city and ccf have been working together for a long time so why wouldn't the city issue an rfp to work with someone who was already interested? so are you upset that since no one came knocking the city should have gone shopping for a system other than cff? it doesn't make sense for them to even do that.

2. While Metro was forced by powerful political and corporate interests to back down on an inpatient model—Metro nevertheless said it wanted to help Lakewood---Summers, et al never lifted a finger to even ask them for an ER FHC. A month after the “ONLY WAY” was signed, Summers admitted under oath that Metro had a longstanding interest in an outpatient facility in Lakewood--but Summers and City Hall never pursued that interests with Metro or anyone else. (See Metro's statements below).

do you have the proof that metro "was forced by powerful political and corporate interests to back down on an inpatient model? because if you do not then the rest of your quote means dick. your pdf of letters do not prove this. in fact they prove the opposite.

3. The responses to records requests prove that Summers and the City leaders failed to issue any RFP to anyone concerning an ER, FHC and/or inpatient hospital.

again, so what. ccf wanted in. we have been working with them for years. the city issues an rfp to look into it. what is so unusual about this?

this post is another example of essi's bombshells gone bust.

[kate e parker]

I just wasted too much time reading all that crap and it was a non-starter.

this is why I don't reply to these posts. you read forever. the reading goes in a circle. and none of it proves a damned thing.

is it any wonder that rossen's and my posts get more replies?

[Corey Rossen]

is it any wonder that rossen's and my posts get more replies?

Sometimes it's exhausting being the popular kids.

[Brian Essi]

All of the facts above have been documented.

Do either you kids have any facts to counter the documented facts besides crying and make believe back slapping?

No? I didn't think so.

Carry on with the 58 cent per hour production.

[Corey Rossen]

All of the facts above have been documented.

Do either you kids have any facts to counter the documented facts besides crying and make believe back slapping?

No? I didn't think so.

Carry on with the 58 cent per hour production.

Stop the hate...

Keep Calm.jpg (78.35 KiB) Viewed 3363 times

[Brian Essi]

Thank you for validating the facts and substance of this post.

The biggest lie of all about the ER came for City Hall.

It was fraud on the people.

[Dan Alaimo]

Thank you for validating the facts and substance of this post.

The biggest lie of all about the ER came for City Hall.

It was fraud on the people.

And if I understand the allegations in your last print article correctly, it was potentially criminal.

[Lori Allen _]

Kevin,

You asked in your post who would benefit financially from the bogus hospital deal. I believe that would be Summers and Company and Extended Company.