The Observation Deck

Bill Call wrote:Mr. Essi deserves a Pulitzer Prize for his research and reporting. If members of the local media were half as ambitious and dogged the whole corrupt deal would have collapsed by now.

It's clear that the Mayor lied to Council, lied to the people and lied to the Court. We deserve better.

I have friends who are friends of the Mayor. When another layer of lies is revealed they first deny it, then get angry and then make excuses. No matter what the lie is they excuse it. I guess I could understand it if the City was getting a spectacular new development but we are getting nothing but a second rate medical office building and a health care desert.

They have been planning the destruction of the Hospital for at least 5 years and they still have no idea what will take its place.

Bill

You have hit on some amazing occurrences in Lakewood, a city that prided itself in openness just 5 short years ago.

When I announced the Hospital Closing, many mutual friends of the mayor's mine and yours called, wrote, tracked me down, begging me to take down the lie. That the mayor had assured them the hospital is not closing. To this day none have asked the mayor why he lied. Instead they say, "Oh he had too..."

You and I have watched an amazing transformation among people we used to look up to, that have either shown themselves to be blissfully ignorant, or part of the problem.

"The Essi problem" quote from a member of council two weeks ago. "We know he is not lying, but the way he says it." Anyway they can explain it away, they desperately try.

This city gave birth to a mayor that stole tires and earth movers from the city. Mayors that hired friends for no reasons, Mayors that sold out who chunks of the city, Mayors that had no background checks and later embarrassed us, that appointed the current regime. Which means the same lack of attention to detail, that was one of City Hall's biggest issues.

"No, he is great at business." Well I hate to drag this stuff in, but he ran the family business and sold it off for a good dollar. It was my understanding that the next generation was n't interested in running it, common issue in family businesses, not matter it was sold for a damn good price. But how do we know it was a "great deal."

Which brings me to this comment

Bill Call wrote:It's clear that the Mayor lied to Council, lied to the people and lied to the Court. We deserve better.

Bill, Council President Mary Louise Madigan, and City Council-At-Large Tom Bullock were part of the dealings. Council wasn't lied too, they were co-conspirators. Lakewood City Council should be more worried about cleaning up their reputation and part of the scheme, instead of doubling down on a terrible deal.

I have said from day one, the problem is not losing the hospital, that is merely the surface "rash" on a much deeper more systemic issue at City Hall, and in the City of Lakewood. The Safety Director/Mayor has made some very, veery bad moves for personal reasons. At every inch, he has been shown proof of other offers, where more money could be had for the city, that how the lease actually rads, and what was meant at the time, but he always comes back to, "no money for new non-profit, and rec center."

We are about to have to pay an additional $250 dollars a year for trash collection, because of this yet unnamed non-profit, that already cost us our largest employer and over $150 million in assets. I'm sure his friends will tell us, he had to, its a secret.

I think it is pretty easy to explain, "We have been played,"

Bridget Conant wrote:

I have friends who are friends of the Mayor. When another layer of lies is revealed they first deny it, then get angry and then make excuses. No matter what the lie is they excuse it.

What excuses stealing city assets from taxpayers? What excuses putting thousands of vulnerable people at risk? What excuses decimating the main economic engine of a city on the edge?

They have been planning the destruction of the Hospital for at least 5 years and they still have no idea what will take its place.

The "deal" was inked in December. It's now May, almost 6 months later. Where are the national developers the mayor claimed were waiting to get their hands on the 4 acres? Dru Siley had an opportunity to "reveal" any "good news" at the recent Chamber presentation, but nothing was said about what they plan to do with the hulking "bricks and mortar" they got stuck with.

But Bridget----Vice Mayor Siley's motto is "We are digging while other cities are still planning."

They have dug a hole and they can't get out of it.

They are in their own prison.

I want to play mayor's advocate for a moment, because I've been thinking about this for a couple days - I'd love to hear counter arguments to this mostly because I don't know what they are...

1) The smoking gun email is written in a very casual style and the Metro person's comment about the mayor prefering a FHC over a hospital doesn't really quote the mayor, just kind of summarizes what has transpired.

2) In his deposition (which I read every word of) the mayor ABSOLUTELY acknowledges a Metro Health proposal and points out the problem - just like the clinic proposal, the deal would end in less than 10 years and that they only wanted to use part of the hospital. I remember thinking that the Metro lease would end right about the time the Clinic lease would end. I might be wrong about that. What would happen after 10 years - we'd be back in this boat again where we had the hot potato of these aging facilities that need to either be torn down or maintained. He was pretty clear in the depo that he did not like Metro's bid. It's unclear to me what really happened to the bid (the mayor says Metro recinded, Metro says the city passed on it). Right or wrong, it's no surprise that the mayor was looking for a partner that would help him set that area up for the longer term future. If you believe any of what the mayor is selling, the lease CCF signed had a zillion outs and ways for CCF to waste all of the foundation money if things weren't the way CCF wanted it. So, I imagine he wasn't too anxious to try to match legal wits with another hospital system. Of course, I have no idea why he didn't behave like a normal politician and kick the can down the road (the end of a metro/lha lease and the details of the lease would be some other mayor's problem soon enough).

Also, none of this excuses the fact that only one entity got to bid on an FHC (Metro and Surgical Partners both submitted plans to operate a hospital because that's what was asked for). I guess I'm just saying this doesn't seem as incriminating as suggested.

Also, I still applaud Mr. Essi for his efforts. He does good work.

todd vainisi wrote:I want to play mayor's advocate for a moment, because I've been thinking about this for a couple days - I'd love to hear counter arguments to this mostly because I don't know what they are...

1) The smoking gun email is written in a very casual style and the Metro person's comment about the mayor prefering a FHC over a hospital doesn't really quote the mayor, just kind of summarizes what has transpired.

2) In his deposition (which I read every word of) the mayor ABSOLUTELY acknowledges a Metro Health proposal and points out the problem - just like the clinic proposal, the deal would end in less than 10 years and that they only wanted to use part of the hospital. I remember thinking that the Metro lease would end right about the time the Clinic lease would end. I might be wrong about that. What would happen after 10 years - we'd be back in this boat again where we had the hot potato of these aging facilities that need to either be torn down or maintained. He was pretty clear in the depo that he did not like Metro's bid. It's unclear to me what really happened to the bid (the mayor says Metro recinded, Metro says the city passed on it). Right or wrong, it's no surprise that the mayor was looking for a partner that would help him set that area up for the longer term future. If you believe any of what the mayor is selling, the lease CCF signed had a zillion outs and ways for CCF to waste all of the foundation money if things weren't the way CCF wanted it. So, I imagine he wasn't too anxious to try to match legal wits with another hospital system. Of course, I have no idea why he didn't behave like a normal politician and kick the can down the road (the end of a metro/lha lease and the details of the lease would be some other mayor's problem soon enough).

Also, none of this excuses the fact that only one entity got to bid on an FHC (Metro and Surgical Partners both submitted plans to operate a hospital because that's what was asked for). I guess I'm just saying this doesn't seem as incriminating as suggested.

Also, I still applaud Mr. Essi for his efforts. He does good work.

Todd,

There are many holes in the Summers testimony and his numerous public that I won't go into on line here on the Deck--but just because Summers says he believed something under oath does not make it a fact or even a fact that he actually believed it. So looking at the Metro deal from what Summers "says" is a bit like running in small circles chasing your tail.

1. Summers had no legal authority to speak on behalf of the City of Lakewood as to accepting, denying or "preferring" an FHC over a hospital. In fact, Summers and his puppet mouthpiece Tom Bullock, admitted during the election that it was City Council's decision, not the mayor's decision. Butler has admitted on behalf of the City that Subsidium had no authority to act on behalf of the city. Another fact--as an LHA trustee his duty was to fulfill the mission to operate a hospital--not an FHC. So he has turned the whole illegal process on its head.

2. It is not a simply matter of whether he did or did not like the Metro proposal---he completely misrepresented the terms of it and what happened to it. By way of example only, he claims that Metro only wanted to operate 50-100 beds--not true. Their proposal stated they projected maintaining the current patient volume. Their proposal was not limited to 10 year as the Mayor claims--we have no commitment from CCF on a term at all. Metro would not be cash poor as Summers claims---they only needed 1/2 of the $24M CCF was sucking out of Lakewood to more than double the CCF capital improvements requirement--Metro would be profitable in Lakewood.

3. Zillions? Summers admitted that he did not understand the legal agreements--he still does not--he misrepresents the agreements--just like he does the Metro proposal. There was only one way for CCF to get out of the Lease/DA---that was to leave Lakewood and leave the valuable Lakewood market share to one of its competitors---they were not about to give that up and they would have paid to keep it. Among the biggest frauds that Summers has played on Lakewood is his shallow claim that he somehow understands the "marketplace"---he did not and does not. He has no clue about it. I know this as a fact because I have interacted with him one on one. He is clueless--I learned that in the first 40 minutes of my 2 and 1/2 hour meeting with him last year--he proves it over and over every time he opens his mouth about it.

So someone at Metro says Summers turned them down and Summers says they "went away" and their interest was "weak". Both can't be true. Aside from the email, there is evidence that Metros was told they were not wanted and to go away by more than one "messenger" acting on Summers' behalf--even though Summers had no authority to send such messages to begin with.

This is a crooked man acted in a crooked way on a crooked deal.

It was well known about a year ago about Metro's offer and Lord and Company's lies. This is not new news. All that can be done is to wait and see if Kucinich has any luck with the FTC. We just have to hope that Sherrod Brown doesn't pull the plug on the complaint.

Good stuff Brian! Thanks, as always, for taking time to thoughtfully respond to my ponderings.

It is not a simply matter of whether he did or did not like the Metro proposal---he completely misrepresented the terms of it and what happened to it. By way of example only, he claims that Metro only wanted to operate 50-100 beds--not true. Their proposal stated they projected maintaining the current patient volume. Their proposal was not limited to 10 year as the Mayor claims--we have no commitment from CCF on a term at all. Metro would not be cash poor as Summers claims---they only needed 1/2 of the $24M CCF was sucking out of Lakewood to more than double the CCF capital improvements requirement--Metro would be profitable in Lakewood.

Have you already supplied documented evidence of these facts here on the deck? I usually look over whatever I see you post, and I know I've seen a MetroHealth proposal, but I think perhaps there was more than one and the one that you did obtain did not support the information you wrote above. I'd like to go back and look at it again if it's out there.

Is there a chance that we win this lawsuit, CCF leaves, and Metro comes in? Or has that ship sailed? Are we just looking to punish the mayor now for his actions, or is there still a way to keep a hospital in Lakewood?

Ask Lord Lakewood for the information, he always tells the truth!

todd vainisi wrote:Good stuff Brian! Thanks, as always, for taking time to thoughtfully respond to my ponderings.

It is not a simply matter of whether he did or did not like the Metro proposal---he completely misrepresented the terms of it and what happened to it. By way of example only, he claims that Metro only wanted to operate 50-100 beds--not true. Their proposal stated they projected maintaining the current patient volume. Their proposal was not limited to 10 year as the Mayor claims--we have no commitment from CCF on a term at all. Metro would not be cash poor as Summers claims---they only needed 1/2 of the $24M CCF was sucking out of Lakewood to more than double the CCF capital improvements requirement--Metro would be profitable in Lakewood.

Have you already supplied documented evidence of these facts here on the deck? I usually look over whatever I see you post, and I know I've seen a MetroHealth proposal, but I think perhaps there was more than one and the one that you did obtain did not support the information you wrote above. I'd like to go back and look at it again if it's out there.

Is there a chance that we win this lawsuit, CCF leaves, and Metro comes in? Or has that ship sailed? Are we just looking to punish the mayor now for his actions, or is there still a way to keep a hospital in Lakewood?

Which statements are you concerned about that you suggest are unsupported by the proposals? FYI I think both Metro proposals were posted by me here long before they were put on the city website. On the City website the CCF proposal is posted with the Metro RFP and the CCF special RFP is not posted---an ongoing dishonest presentation.

Which statements are you concerned about that you suggest are unsupported by the proposals?

I could swear that there was a version of the proposal that wasn't very good, and then someone saying there was a "secret" or less public one that was much better. I'm pretty sure ALL the documented evidence that I've seen has come from you Brian! (Well, maybe JOB posted the link to the mayor's depo.) The city has a page on their website with hospital documents? That is very surprising to me, since they are supposedly hiding everything from us.

I'll try to find the Metrohealth props on this board. I mostly just want to look at them and see what they say, now that I know what the mayor says they say. Know what I mean, Vern?

todd vainisi wrote:

Which statements are you concerned about that you suggest are unsupported by the proposals?

I could swear that there was a version of the proposal that wasn't very good, and then someone saying there was a "secret" or less public one that was much better. I'm pretty sure ALL the documented evidence that I've seen has come from you Brian! (Well, maybe JOB posted the link to the mayor's depo.) The city has a page on their website with hospital documents? That is very surprising to me, since they are supposedly hiding everything from us.

I'll try to find the Metrohealth props on this board. I mostly just want to look at them and see what they say, now that I know what the mayor says they say. Know what I mean, Vern?

Todd,

They never put the proposals on their site until well after Metro was sent packing and they made sure they were never coming back. If you read my article this week in the LO you'll see a quote from the original proposal that said Metro was "all ears" as to what Summers may have wanted in terms of a structure. I have 30+ years experience in preparing, negotiating and reviewing proposals and agreements. Summers admitted failure to respond to Metro (except for show under intense political pressure to do so) says it all. Ditto on the SDP offer.

I listened to Summers tell me Metro waned everything--that was a blatant lie.

We will shortly see what a failure he is as a
leader.

The crime is only 1/2 executed so far.

Not sure if we need to wait. I think through the appearance of this city alone, along with the hospital, twenty rapes in a year and a half, three gangs on Madison, the increased crime rate, he has already shown himself to be the worst mayor in all the years I've lived here. You really have to look for the crimes, as this mayor seems to be able to keep it out of the media, because as he says: