"President" O'Leary Is Objectively Worse In Every Measurable Way

[Brian Essi]

O'Leary has caused Negative Personal Politics to Overtake Lakewood---O'Leary's Council Presidency is a failure.

In the coming months, I plan to present a series of concealed public records that further expose O'Leary's duplicity, but here is a brief review of what we already know about his lack of intellectual honesty:

1. H sat silently and secretly supporting the withholding of 30,000 pages public records for over a year.

2. He made false and misleading statements under oath that were proven to be false by public records he actively withheld with Butler's complicity.

3. He led voters to believe he would vote to keep the hospital open, but right after he won his election, he voted to close it---He claimed the $5M cost of renovating a parking garage was a major reason he voted to close the $120 hospital after 100 years. Huh?

4. O’Leary Continues His 2 Year Long Delay in Delivery of Charity Care to the most vulnerable--all for Political Purposes---Recall that he delayed formation of the Foundation Task Force until after the pending referendum in 2016. After the election he appointed a CCF employed doctor as his pick for the Task Force.

The harm O'Leary has caused to Lakewood's most vulnerable citizens was first pointed out in two factual articles from a year ago---Since then, O'Leary has cowered from any public response--remaining in his shadowy Council closet.

http://lakewoodobserver.com/read/2017/0 ... -political

“New Foundation” Is Objectively Worse In Every Measurable Way.

http://lakewoodobserver.com/read/2016/1 ... e-in-every

The facts set forth in Bad Government 11 (http://lakewoodobserver.com/read/2016/1 ... e-in-every) were delivered to City Council during the public comment portion of the Council Meeting on December 19, 2016.

In response to those facts, Council President Sam O'Leary doubled down on his previous claim saying, “I absolutely 100% stand by my comment that it [the Master Agreement] is in every measurable way objectively better.” Again, the facts show that City Council negotiated backwards from the original Letter of Intent (LOI) and ended up with about $7 million less money for the new charitable foundation under the final agreement (based upon the present value of the delayed funding).

To defend his claim, Mr. O’Leary said on December 19, 2016: “We were able to get an amount certain for the community health foundation whereas previously it was amounts that would be left after a wind down uncertain.” However, the original LOI guaranteed $24.4 million and provided: “The amount of such payment is fixed and will not vary due to the value of assets remaining following the Hospital’s cessation of operations.” So, O’Leary’s latest claim is untrue.

O’Leary further stated on December 19, 2016 that: “The city and the other parties to the agreement might have moved more swiftly this year [to form the new foundation] were it not for the fact that there was a ballot referendum [Issue 64] challenging the legitimacy of the action at large. So, certainly I think that had we acted this year to say spend $12 million we would have come under significant public scrutiny for spending money that was then subjected to a referendum without having actually allowed for a second blessing by the voters of this transaction.” Of course, they could not have spent $12 million in 2015, because the new foundation will not even have $12 million until sometime in 2022 due to delayed funding.

In addition, City Council, led by Mr. O’Leary, promoted all the following actions and positions while the “legitimacy” of the Master Agreement was being challenged:

Closure of the hospital.
Termination of nearly 1,200 hospital employees.
Transfer of all medical equipment and bed licenses to the Cleveland Clinic.
Cancellation of all Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance contracts.
Transfer of millions of dollars of cash and title to real estate.
Commencement of demolition of two buildings.
A “legal” opinion of Law Director Kevin Butler that the outcome of Issue 64 did not affect the “legitimacy” of the Master Agreement.
So, O’Leary advanced all those things, but now claims he refrained from appointing task force members to discuss a health foundation because he and other public officials would be “under significant public scrutiny” if they had not delayed this less significant action until after the vote on Issue 64.

The complete list of the 17 task force members was made public on January 3, 2017 and included City Hall insiders and people associated with the Clinic.

So, it appears that the delay in making the task force appointments public was to avoid significant public scrutiny while Issue 64 was pending.

Under O’Leary’s leadership, the parts of the Master Agreement detrimental to the health of citizens were immediately implemented, but the part that was supposed to advance the health of citizens was purposely delayed for political purposes.

[Bridget Conant]

O’Leary, who plans to be a career politician, should look closely at two Lakewood pols who had the same goals: Ed Fitzgerald, who actually fantasized that he’d be selected as a VP candidate after he won the Ohio gubernatorial race, and Tom Bullock, who aspires to a higher Ohio office but just got cold water thrown into his face.

Neither of these “career politicians” reached their goals due to the public finally seeing through their phony facades. You can only pretend to be someone you’re not for so long.

So wise up, Sammy. You’ve made some bad moves. It’s going to come back to haunt you soon.

All Lakewood council members take note of the recent election of two new members, knocking out incumbents. It’s going to continue.

[Dan Alaimo]

Worse than the rest of the old Council? Including Bullock? Worse than the Mayor?

[Michael Deneen]

I'm curious to see how "Sam the Sham" tries to rescue his career going forward.
Unless he's an idiot, he can see that being part of "Team Summers" ship is not a viable long-term strategy for him.
He may try to "move left" by trying to appear more progressive.
For example, I expect he'll join O'Malley in opposing the BSL legislation.
The combination of a "Progressive makeover", short voter memories, and a VERY Irish name might be enough to save him from the fate of Nowlin, Marx, and Bullock.

However, he has already demonstrated that he can't be trusted, and that he will cave to conservative interests when the pressure is on.
There are many of us out here that will NEVER let voters forget that.
He needs to go.

[Brian Essi]

Worse than the rest of the old Council? Including Bullock? Worse than the Mayor?

Good Morning Mr. Alaimo,

Let's look at who is the best option to lead Council in 2018 & 2019:

1. Summers is not a viable option for Council President.

2. Bullock is not either--he lost to Meghan George by nearly 1400 votes and to Tristan Rader by over 1,100 votes---He has no standing to be President.

3. Litten seems like a nice guy, but he was part of the LHA Insiders Club and voted to give away the farm---also, he presents as way too timid to lead.

4. Anderson has proven himself to be too weak--he didn't step up 2 years ago and bowed to his Junior buddy O'Leary--he allowed himself to be used in the 2016 campaign---he is bitter and dejected--he now views himself a a victim of the people, not a leader.

5. George and Rader are new to Council and unlikely to gather the votes at this time.

6. That leaves O'Malley---after 2 years on Council he has proven himself skillful. He's a gentlemen, but can stand firm with grace---He has held a series of town hall meeting and has been the most accessible member on Council the past 2 years--he answers questions (when he can) while others cowered and hid. His skill set as a union organizer makes him uniquely qualified as a legislator--he knows how to build consensus.

O'Leary possesses a law license, but he has shifted jobs in three years as many times as he has shifted his positions--he's a simple workers comp lawyer who now casts himself as an economic development expert--he is too young and green to have any expertise at anything.

O'Leary's widow of opportunity opened early and he blew it---the door is already closing on him--In contrast O'Malley has a great future in politics--likely beyond Lakewood.

O'Malley now has more experience on Council than O'Leary had when he slithered into his presidency role by flip flopping and misleading the women, the underserved and the elderly in Lakewood.

Lakewood should take advantage of O'Malley's skill set while he is here in Lakewood.

If the 2018 Council cares about healing and uniting Lakewood, it can't be done by re-electing O'Leary and staring at the past and continuing negative personal politics.

O'Leary should sit down for the good of Lakewood.

[Brian Essi]

Unless he's an idiot,...

Mr. Deneen,

Perhaps you need another cup of coffee this morning and clear up any any uncertainty in this early morning thinking.

[Brian Essi]

Objectively. Measurable.