The Observation Deck

Bridget Conant wrote:Here is the filing if anyone wants to read it.

skindell filing.pdf

Note that the authors were Law Director Butler and Rob Cahill, not Sam O'Leary. However, he was certainly involved as the filing requests that he be allowed to represent the remaining defendants by appearing for them at the hearing.

Just when we thought the absurdities of Mr. Butler and Defendant O'Leary could not be exceeded, they give us this bizarre Motion to have Butler and O'Leary be the eyes and ears for all of City Council Defendants at a Court ordered mediation.

Essentially Butler and City Council Defendants are arguing they don't want to meet in mediation in pending litigation because they believe it will somehow violate the Sunshine Laws. They seem to have forgotten two apparent actions and claims made by them in the course of that same pending litigation:

1. In the lower court they argued (and O'Leary testified) that the pending Graham litigation justified numerous secret meetings to negotiate the Master Agreement. Now they claim the negotiation of a potential settlement agreement pursuant to a Court order might violate the Sunshine Laws. Huh?

2. Any lawyer properly making the motion Butler made would have had to first meet with ALL of his Defendant clients and obtained their consent and AGREEMENT to the motion. If so, that suggests that they have already had a non-public meeting and agreement concerning the court ordered mediation.

The whole point of court ordered mediation is to have ALL parties aware of and involved in any potential settlement process. Having just Butler and O'Leary present and supposedly accurately relay information about what happened in the mediation is a perpetuation of something we know went terribly wrong in the Master Agreement debacle. Namely, a subset of city council members will be gettting their information from others (Butler/O'Leary) that will be "in the room" and then making decisions based upon undocumented hearsay.

That's exactly how the City Council gave away $100M in public money and property in exchange for CCF somehow paying non-existent undocumented "wind down" expenses, i.e. They got bogus information from the"people in the room".

Butler's claim that Ordinance 49-15 was the most debated in Lakewood history also contradicts O'Leary's testimony that there were no deliberations prior to December 7th.

Butler continues to guide City Council to a bizarre make believe place completely divorced from reality.

Speaking of Jennifer Pae:

Although there is a person that handles billing and invoices in the finance department, all refuse invoices are signed Jennifer Pae. Is there a possibility that this is the case to ensure that none of the mayor's friends are fined?

Also, I am beginning to wonder why Ms. Pae was hired with what appears to be a criminal record, according to public records. Said criminal record appears to involve a first-degree misdemeanor, punishable by 180 days in jail and a $1,000 fine, according to public records. According to public records, Ms. Pae was let go with a $124 fine.

IMO, another reason they don't want all of the council members to appear is that they have no guarantee as to what they'll say if questioned. It's pretty hard to keep the story straight when there are so many people and so many ways to veer from the story.

If only O'Leary appears, it reduces the possibility that the narrative will be altered and lessens the chances of making mistakes or contradicting testimony.

Brian Essi wrote:

Bridget Conant wrote:Here is the filing if anyone wants to read it.

skindell filing.pdf

Note that the authors were Law Director Butler and Rob Cahill, not Sam O'Leary. However, he was certainly involved as the filing requests that he be allowed to represent the remaining defendants by appearing for them at the hearing.

Just when we thought the absurdities of Mr. Butler and Defendant O'Leary could not be exceeded, they give us this bizarre Motion to have Butler and O'Leary be the eyes and ears for all of City Council Defendants at a Court ordered mediation.

Essentially Butler and City Council Defendants are arguing they don't want to meet in mediation in pending litigation because they believe it will somehow violate the Sunshine Laws. They seem to have forgotten two apparent actions and claims made by them in the course of that same pending litigation:

1. In the lower court they argued (and O'Leary testified) that the pending Graham litigation justified numerous secret meetings to negotiate the Master Agreement. Now they claim the negotiation of a potential settlement agreement pursuant to a Court order might violate the Sunshine Laws. Huh?

2. Any lawyer properly making the motion Butler made would have had to first meet with ALL of his Defendant clients and obtained their consent and AGREEMENT to the motion. If so, that suggests that they have already had a non-public meeting and agreement concerning the court ordered mediation.

The whole point of court ordered mediation is to have ALL parties aware of and involved in any potential settlement process. Having just Butler and O'Leary present and supposedly accurately relay information about what happened in the mediation is a perpetuation of something we know went terribly wrong in the Master Agreement debacle. Namely, a subset of city council members will be gettting their information from others (Butler/O'Leary) that will be "in the room" and then making decisions based upon undocumented hearsay.

That's exactly how the City Council gave away $100M in public money and property in exchange for CCF somehow paying non-existent undocumented "wind down" expenses, i.e. They got bogus information from the"people in the room".

Butler's claim that Ordinance 49-15 was the most debated in Lakewood history also contradicts O'Leary's testimony that there were no deliberations prior to December 7th.

Butler continues to guide City Council to a bizarre make believe place completely divorced from reality.

Also, their argument that two of the defendants are no longer members of council and therefore need not appear seems absurd on its face. So if you quit a job you are absolved of all future liability associated with how you conducted yourself while on the job?

So if you quit a job you are absolved of all future liability associated with how you conducted yourself while on the job?

Doesn't work that way. Wouldn't you expect a LAWYER to know that?

Bridget Conant wrote:IMO, another reason they don't want all of the council members to appear is that they have no guarantee as to what they'll say if questioned. It's pretty hard to keep the story straight when there are so many people and so many ways to veer from the story. If only O'Leary appears, it reduces the possibility that the narrative will be altered and lessens the chances of making mistakes or contradicting testimony.

THIS.

cmager wrote:

Bridget Conant wrote:IMO, another reason they don't want all of the council members to appear is that they have no guarantee as to what they'll say if questioned. It's pretty hard to keep the story straight when there are so many people and so many ways to veer from the story. If only O'Leary appears, it reduces the possibility that the narrative will be altered and lessens the chances of making mistakes or contradicting testimony.

THIS.

And THIS deserves its own thread and I have no clue as to how to do that.

Kate McCarthy wrote:

cmager wrote:

Bridget Conant wrote:IMO, another reason they don't want all of the council members to appear is that they have no guarantee as to what they'll say if questioned. It's pretty hard to keep the story straight when there are so many people and so many ways to veer from the story. If only O'Leary appears, it reduces the possibility that the narrative will be altered and lessens the chances of making mistakes or contradicting testimony.

THIS.

And THIS deserves its own thread and I have no clue as to how to do that.

Sorry, out of town with only my phone.

cmager wrote:

Bridget Conant wrote:IMO, another reason they don't want all of the council members to appear is that they have no guarantee as to what they'll say if questioned. It's pretty hard to keep the story straight when there are so many people and so many ways to veer from the story. If only O'Leary appears, it reduces the possibility that the narrative will be altered and lessens the chances of making mistakes or contradicting testimony.

THIS.

FWIW

I believe that only the President of the School Board, and President of Council can speak for their collective bodies.

Perhaps someone with the charter, or experience can explain. But for years, if it doesn't come from the head, it is just talk.

I think.

.

FWIW

I believe that only the President of the School Board, and President of Council can speak for their collective bodies.

Perhaps someone with the charter, or experience can explain. But for years, if it doesn't come from the head, it is just talk.

I think.

.[/quote]

Not all of the current members of council are named in the suit. I don't see how the city charter is relevant.

Quick! Someone should alert Kevin Butler and Robert Cahill and Sam O'Leary that people are TALKING about the court case! They need to copy/paste it and let the judge know it's being POLITICIZED by Lakewood residents!

Those pesky residents - how dare they question how this city operates!

Conducting a little historical research, lately, I came across a noteworthy statement from almost 11 years ago, which seemed worth sharing. From "No Meeting, But Still Working" by Stan Austin, in the Feb. 7, 2006 Observer:

The Observation Deck is the only board in town whose membership includes the Mayor, all members of City Council, the entire Board of Education, members of almost every department at city hall, the Lakewood Public Library, The Lakewood Chamber of Commerce, LakewoodAlive and others.

http://media.lakewoodobserver.com/issue ... e%2003.pdf

Based on a very quick look, this forum draws at least as many visitors as in those days past. One wonders why contemporary public officials have—so it appears—taken such a dramatically different view of this dialogue.

mjkuhns wrote:Conducting a little historical research, lately, I came across a noteworthy statement from almost 11 years ago, which seemed worth sharing. From "No Meeting, But Still Working" by Stan Austin, in the Feb. 7, 2006 Observer:

The Observation Deck is the only board in town whose membership includes the Mayor, all members of City Council, the entire Board of Education, members of almost every department at city hall, the Lakewood Public Library, The Lakewood Chamber of Commerce, LakewoodAlive and others.

http://media.lakewoodobserver.com/issue ... e%2003.pdf

Based on a very quick look, this forum draws at least as many visitors as in those days past. One wonders why contemporary public officials have—so it appears—taken such a dramatically different view of this dialogue.

Not sure how respond to this question (well, yes I do but I don't have the patience to do so right now) ... but, wow, the Observer sure has great records retention policy in place!!

mjkuhns wrote:Based on a very quick look, this forum draws at least as many visitors as in those days past. One wonders why contemporary public officials have—so it appears—taken such a dramatically different view of this dialogue.

They simply cannot put up.

They called us liars, we come back with documents.

They called us haters, in fact once the election was over, we saw who the haters were.

They say we are negative, we have from day one asked to help, asked to understand.

City Hall is playing this city for idiots, City is catching on.

Last Thursday a longtime friend who works at City Hall ran into me at a restaurant. "We miss seeing you come around, but you are really messing things up. I said, why not tell your bosses to tell the truth, and open all documents and messages. The response, "Some residents do not deserve the truth."

I have posted for more than two years, "City Hall has lost its moral compass, it has gone feral and is out of control."

They sold our hospital and gave the money to their friends.

.

Jim O'Bryan wrote: They sold our hospital and gave the money to their friends.

.

A very concise and accurate description of the entire Hospital deal.

The Plain Dealer is reporting that the new Private Foundation (funded with City money ) will be providing bus service to Avon so the people of Lakewood can see their doctor.

Where was the public debate?

Apparently in Lakewood public debates and public votes are held in private.

A Brave New World.