The Observation Deck

Great quotes! So apropos.

That "small group" that Kate refers to is a tight knit group of sycophants who all think alike, belong to all the same "clubs'" and never critically question whatever their leader tells them because they don't want to lose their status of being part of the group.

Bridget Conant wrote:Great quotes! So apropos.

That "small group" that Kate refers to is a tight knit group of sycophants who all think alike, belong to all the same "clubs'" and never critically question whatever their leader tells them because they don't want to lose their status of being part of the group.

Like this gem from the past sent in by Kreshnik Musmurati, two years into the "Decanting of Lakewood Hospital"


Mayor Summers, gives head Ken Haber of LHF and member of LHA, the key to the city at the Mayor's Ball.

At the time we all thought the Key To The City was a metaphor.

.

Who is accepting the key?

james fitzgibbons wrote:Who is accepting the key?

Ken Haber, who was head of LHF, and member of LHA. In 2011, it would be hard to know just who knew what, and when. But then this photo was taken they both knew the hospital was closing, and they had made the decision to expedite the closer, and move the money into private hands.

As the City voted to purge records after 2 years, they have been destroyed. Though legal scholars would tell you 5 or 7 years would be more prudent.

This is what is so disappointing, this entire deal could have been managed so much better. Instead the Mayor chose to hide it, lie about it, cover it up, and go after anyone that did not go along with it.

There is a legal term for this. It is called "spoliation of evidence". If I were legal counsel for the taxpayers in their lawsuit, I would seek civil damages for spoliation. Records relevant to claims in that lawsuit must be preserved by the city and not deleted or destroyed. If so, the city is at risk for these kinds of damages. Such damages can be substantial.

Mark Kindt wrote:If so, the city is at risk for these kinds of damages. Such damages can be substantial.

Mark - your recent posts about government, governance, ethics, transparency, etc. (which I find to be "must read material" by the way) -- combined with statement of yours I just gleaned/quoted -- leads me to this question: ultimately, if damages were to be awarded in the current taxpayer lawsuit, which employees and/or elected officials at City Hall (past and present) would have the fiduciary burden of paying the damages? Do municipalities have insurance policies that cover such situations (for either the municipality itself or for the employees/elected officials)? I hope my question makes sense.

Peter Grossetti wrote:

Mark Kindt wrote:If so, the city is at risk for these kinds of damages. Such damages can be substantial.

Mark - your recent posts about government, governance, ethics, transparency, etc. (which I find to be "must read material" by the way) -- combined with statement of yours I just gleaned/quoted -- leads me to this question: ultimately, if damages were to be awarded in the current taxpayer lawsuit, which employees and/or elected officials at City Hall (past and present) would have the fiduciary burden of paying the damages? Do municipalities have insurance policies that cover such situations (for either the municipality itself or for the employees/elected officials)? I hope my question makes sense.

A further question: Who gets the money?

The party who brings the claim for spoliation damages would receive these damages in addition to other damages that a court might award in a lawsuit. In some routine cases, the spoliation damages might exceed the other damages. Other sanctions can be applied by the court against the party who purposefully or even neglectfully improperly disposed of evidence. This is a severe risk when you think about the routine deletion of email or email attachments.

I will be blunt about this. If the city administration is prepared to file a materially false affidavit in state court, then, given such a mentality, they face a high risk of a successful spoliation claim against them.

In the taxpayer lawsuit, our lawyers are working on contingency. They have sunk a lot of money into preparing our case, so they need to be repaid for that and then they get a percentage of the award. The rest of the money goes to the taxpayers. Preferably overseen by those who are not part of the group that got us into this mess to begin with.

dl meckes wrote: The rest of the money goes to the taxpayers.

I'd like to understand better how that is going to work, more specifically.
Again my question: who gets the money?

dl meckes wrote:The rest of the money goes to the taxpayers.

Define "taxpayers," please. Only those individuals specifically named as plaintiffs in the original lawsuit? All 52,000 residents (or whatever the number is)? And related, "resident/taxpayer" at the time the suit was brought forward? when then final decision is made? when the spoilage damages occurred? Or is "taxpayers" just a way of saying "the municipality" or "city coffers?"

Dan Alaimo wrote:

dl meckes wrote: The rest of the money goes to the taxpayers.

I'd like to understand better how that is going to work, more specifically.
Again my question: who gets the money?

The "City of Lakewood" is both a plaintiff and a defendant and even though Ed, Amy, DL, Bill, and Marguerite are also plaintiffs, my reading of the complaint is that they are are essentially pursuing a claim on the City's behalf (and our behalf as taxpayers).

So it would appear that if there is any money to be paid (after attorneys fees and costs), that money would be paid to the City. Presumably if it ever comes to that, the judgment entry could be fashioned so that the money is earmarked or put in a special funds.

So, for example, it doesn't just get put in the General Fund and get spent on the Active Living Task Force or New Foundation Task Force or other "well intentioned" but fiscally questionable "dreams".

Brian's take is correct. The "Disgruntled Five", Ed, Amy, Bill, Marguerite, and I are representatives of all of the Lakewood taxpayers.

We receive nothing if any awards are made.

In a different post I suggested that any money go into a separate fund to be spent solely on sewer replacement. My logic is that any funds should not go back in the hands of those who lost it to begin with. And, spending it on sewers would be an equitable way of returning money that came out of the Lakewood community over the last 100 years.

Stan Austin wrote:In a different post I suggested that any money go into a separate fund to be spent solely on sewer replacement. My logic is that any funds should not go back in the hands of those who lost it to begin with. And, spending it on sewers would be an equitable way of returning money that came out of the Lakewood community over the last 100 years.

Mr. Austin,

I agree. Throwing money into Lakewood sewers would be more beneficial to Lakewood than what our elected officials did with over $100 million in charitable healthcare assets that left Lakewood.