The Observation Deck

Mr. Kindt,

Thank you for your post.

Unfortunately, I suspect that many of the records in question have been shredded or otherwise destroyed, at least any that could imply dubious or criminal activity.

I agree, what is in these records that is so damaging? Only time will tell.

What are the possible ramifications to the City of Lakewood if they still refuse to produce the documents? Contempt of court? Can a city be held in contempt of court or would it be just Butler? Could the City of Lakewood be fined for contempt? If so, would that come from the city coffers? Could Butler be put in the clink?

Given the sheer size of the transaction related to the liquidation of the hospital, misrepresentations made about that liquidation, and sustained organized public protest, we should not be surprised that this all has generated numerous public records requests to the City of Lakewood.

Obviously, it will take multiple and voluminous public records requests for the public to understand how it all went down.

The public deserves to understand what really happened to a prized community-asset and the public revenue streams that went with it. Moreover, the public deserves a clearer picture of how lease revenue streams that went to the City of Lakewood and public contractual reversionary rights now resurface as a revenue stream to a new private non-profit that will not be controlled by the public (and where CCF has contractual rights to board seats).

Somehow public rights and benefits where converted to private purposes.

I, for one, would really like to understand how this magic trick was accomplished.

The City of Lakewood has a statutory duty to comply with the Ohio public records statutes. The City of Lakewood has a duty to its voters, residents, citizens and taxpayers to release requested public documents. Where documents are protected as privileged under the statutes, that privilege should be construed narrowly. The City of Lakewood needs to recognize that the Ohio courts are unlikely to expand the scope of the attorney client privilege under the public record laws.

They know that they are misconstruing the exemptions to the statutes for purposes of delay and to frustrate the journalism of the citizen who has requested the documents.

It is time to release all of the requested public records on an expedited basis.

If Mr. Anderson does not like the consequences of the statutes, he needs to seek their change before the Ohio legislature. Until then, the City of Lakewood has to meet its legal duties under the law.

David Anderson wrote: As I have posted before, residents agreeing and disagreeing with any decision, comment or vote I’ve made comes with the territory. I volunteered to file petitions to be a candidate for public office. I ran and won - twice. No complaints here and folks certainly do not need my permission to criticize me. However, most on the Deck continue to label me as unethical, undemocratic, without morals and corrupt and as one who has acted illegally. For a resident to approach me while I am at the checkout line at the Lakewood Library main branch with my children at my side and say, “Shouldn’t you be in an orange jumpsuit in some prison somewhere?” is beyond incomprehensible to me. Then there was that SLH meeting I attended last November.

Thanks for keeping us informed about the lawsuit regarding the public records request.

137,000 emails is certainly an impressive number of records.

However, those are electronic records not paper records. Those electronic records can be easily distributed and scanned for key words and phrases. There are any number of programs available for advanced searches. It seems the City's failure to respond to the request is driven more by a desire to keep secrets than the fear of all of that work.

If the City spent has as much time and money complying with the request as they did in fighting the request there would have been no need for a lawsuit.

Most citizens are still suspicious of the whole Hospital deal. A timely release of the requested information seems a small request in an issue that looms so large.

I am not a lawyer so I don't mind saying I am a little confused about the terms "personal email" and "attorney client privilege".

If an email is sent on a City email platform is it really personal? Aren't all emails sent or received at public expense public records?

Just what is the attorney client privilege in the case? The City and its representatives discussed the sale of City assets with their attorneys. Since we are talking about City assets isn't the real client the People of the City of Lakewood? What right does the Mayor have to keep the Citizens from knowing about the discussions that took place between the City's lawyer and the Mayor? We pay the lawyer, we pay the Mayor and we owned the assets. Just whose privilege is the Mayor protecting?

What City assets are we talking about?

The Auditors report was quite clear. The LHA leased the Hospital from the City. All of the assets of every kind including, cash, receivables, land, buildings and "all monies and accounts receivable" are to be returned to the City at the end of the lease term. How much are we talking about? About $130 million in net assets. The City should stop fighting the public records request and come clean.

I am sorry about the altercation in the Library. You deserve the respect of your office. Sometimes people get to emotionally involved. Sometimes threats and intimidation seem like a good idea.

Like when the Mayor sent the police department to harass a supporter of SLH. Or when the Mayor sent is pal R. U. to harass and intimidate and threaten SLH supporters both in person and on line. Or when supporters of SLH had their jobs threatened. There was some attempt to bribe SLH supporters but I am not sure if bribery is a threat, an intimidation for just business as usual. (change as per later post)

I am sure you are as offended by that conduct as I am.

Bill Call wrote:[
If an email is sent on a City email platform is it really personal? Aren't all emails sent or received at public expense public records?

I am sorry about the altercation in the Library. You deserve the respect of your office. Sometimes people get to emotionally involved. Sometimes threats and intimidation seem like a good idea.
.

Bill

It is my understanding that everyone has a right to privacy with Doctor, Lawyer, and potentially Spouse. From their it gets tricky. I go to my lawyer, and get advice about my doctor and condition, it is all protected. I write a note to anyone outside of that chain, that is admissible, and depending on topic, could go back to open the door on others.

Another fascinating thing. Anyone at City Hall that uses a personal computer for public work, opens their personal computers to search making it illegal to destroy or dispose of those records. This is very serious stuff. While the fine for destroying a public documents is merely a $1,000 a document, the penalty for destroying a document that could have been used in a lawsuit or prosecution could be jail time. The two reasons Benny Bonanano went to jail was, 1) Running a reelection campaign from his government office, 2) Destroying records that "could have been used in a legal case." Sound familiar?

Finally, as you look at what has been said, from day one about everything going on here, I think they have so much to hide they have already decided to take the fines and do to jail. Just waiting for the blade to drop.

We said they were closing the hospital, they said they weren't It closed
We said City Hall was behind it, they said they weren't we found out they were.
We said they hired thugs to intimidate voters and opponents, it was proven by Lakewood Police they did.
We said, they lied and marginalized the Observer and conspired to run us out of business, SLAPP suit, and the constant attacks to this day.
Build Lakewood came in and yelled that we are negative and working together, Could the documents prove just the opposite? Yes
Comments were made 2.5 years ago that the new foudation's would be run by the mayor's friends. One list is public, the second still hidden.
We were told the Active Living Task Force had no connection the hospital, then found out they were inseparable.
We were told that the police report against Essi was not false, emails proved it was "getting even."
We said the scheme had been going on for over a decade, they said it was sprung on them by the evil Cleveland clinic. Public records and Essi uncovered that it had been going on since 2010 and before.
City Hall claimed they were in partnership with lawyers from Clinic and others, this week we found out that was not true, no signed document ever existed.
The Neighborhood Paper, that was really a political piece, paid for with checks made out to "Summers for Mayor" but carried no political mentions as required by law, and filed with false facts, was underwritten by Kevin Butler, and Ed FitzGerald.
City Hall has spent over $2,500,000,00 to spin the facts and control the message, for the best deal ever for Lakewood.
Members from all of the groups had to be forced to step down for ethics violations.
Jen Pae's false affidavit to the courts. Which a court based a ruling on, jailable.

The list goes on and on, so for a honest public official to say, "Boy that is too much work." Makes me want to ask, just how bad is it?

David Anderson

If the person that approached you at the Lakewood Public Library is on the Deck, please let me know, they will be dealt with. You are a good family man, I know your family well, your kids cut my grass and do a great job. There should be zero tolerance for that in Lakewood.

I find it odd that you mention the SLH member but don't mention the founding member of BuildLakewood, that was found to be harassing, and intimidating them in person, at the Library, now banned, at McDonald's under investigation, at the RNC, in front of the Root (under investigation), and on and on and on and on. You know, and you knew it, you have followed it, but you chose to mention SLH member. Why?

David, you are a good man, join with me let's together walk forward, put it all behind us and make the records public, so that this entire city can heal, and move forward. You know this has gotten way to ugly, nasty, and illegal. No one wants anyone to go to jail, we just want the documents.

My bet, the documents prove the Observers were right from day one.

.

[quote="Bill Call"

Like when the Mayor sent the police department to harass a supporter of LHA. Or when the Mayor sent is pal R. U. to harass and intimidate and threaten SLH supporters both in person and on line. Or when supporters of LHA had their jobs threatened. There was some attempt to bribe LHA supporters but I am not sure if bribery is a threat, an intimidation for just business as usual.

I am sure you are as offended by that conduct as I am.[/quote]

Substitute SLH for LHA.

Do we need a special prosecutor for these matters?
--
I was also at the November meeting and spoke up against their trying to exclude David Anderson, which was against the library's meetings policy. They didn't like that I said that and I haven't been back to SLH/Strong Lkwd meetings, although I do appreciate being in the loop of what is going on. Emotions were raw at that meeting, which was right after the election and took several ugly turns. After the meeting, I told David Anderson that I didn't agree with many of the things they said to him.

Interested citizens should continue to press the City of Lakewood to release all of the records sought by Mr. Essi and demand that the City of Lakewood comply with its statutory obligations with respect to open meetings and public records. Interested citizens should also make inquiry into the extent to which lawyers retained by the Cleveland Clinic Foundation are providing "guidance" to the City of Lakewood with respects to these statutory obligations.

If the City of Lakewood has a Joint Defense Agreement or a Common Interest Agreement with the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, the existence of such agreements should be disclosed promptly, so the citizens of Lakewood can raise the appropriate questions and make informed decisions about the governance of the city.

If third-party lawyers are attempting to obstruct the City of Lakewood's compliance with Ohio statutes, the citizens need to understand the scope of such interference.

Mark Kindt wrote:Interested citizens should continue to press the City of Lakewood to release all of the records sought by Mr. Essi and demand that the City of Lakewood comply with its statutory obligations with respect to open meetings and public records. Interested citizens should also make inquiry into the extent to which lawyers retained by the Cleveland Clinic Foundation are providing "guidance" to the City of Lakewood with respects to these statutory obligations.

If the City of Lakewood has a Joint Defense Agreement or a Common Interest Agreement with the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, the existence of such agreements should be disclosed promptly, so the citizens of Lakewood can raise the appropriate questions and make informed decisions about the governance of the city.

If third-party lawyers are attempting to obstruct the City of Lakewood's compliance with Ohio statutes, the citizens need to understand the scope of such interference.

Mr Kindt

If you have time, it would be useful to explain more about what a Joint Defense Agreement is and what the significance would be if the City did or did not have one with the Cleveland Clinic.

Mark Kindt wrote:Interested citizens should continue to press the City of Lakewood to release all of the records sought by Mr. Essi and demand that the City of Lakewood comply with its statutory obligations with respect to open meetings and public records. Interested citizens should also make inquiry into the extent to which lawyers retained by the Cleveland Clinic Foundation are providing "guidance" to the City of Lakewood with respects to these statutory obligations.

If the City of Lakewood has a Joint Defense Agreement or a Common Interest Agreement with the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, the existence of such agreements should be disclosed promptly, so the citizens of Lakewood can raise the appropriate questions and make informed decisions about the governance of the city.

If third-party lawyers are attempting to obstruct the City of Lakewood's compliance with Ohio statutes, the citizens need to understand the scope of such interference.

Mr Kindt

If you have time, it would be useful to explain more about what a Joint Defense Agreement is and what the significance would be if the City did or did not have one with the Cleveland Clinic.

OF COURSE the public has the right to receive a complete duplication of every city record!!!

NOW WE KNOW how Mr. Anderson "Here to Serve" really feels about Transparency in government.

I have nothing of substance to add to the intellectual discourse already presented here on this topic. I thank each of you for your time and expertise in this arena.

I am still waiting for the rest of City Council and City Officials to weigh in with their thoughts on this matter. (we already know their actions thus far)

Please, City Council, Jenn Pae, Mayor Summers et all... tell us if you agree with David Anderson.

Mark Kindt wrote:
If third-party lawyers are attempting to obstruct the City of Lakewood's compliance with Ohio statutes, the citizens need to understand the scope of such interference.

Now that is an interesting thought. Someone is helping the City resist a valid open records request.

Who?
Why?

I doubt that it is just a desire to waste Mr Essi's time.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:David, you are a good man,

JOB repeatedly claims that David Anderson is "a good man".
Based on what, exactly?
I judge public officials by their actions, not their temperament or family.
For example, George W Bush is not a "good man"....he's a guy that killed hundreds of thousands with a fake war. I don't care how nice his kids are, what church he does or doesn't attend, or how much fun he is to "have a beer with".

When the chips were down David Anderson decided to side with corporate interests over his own neighbors.
It doesn't matter whose lawn his kids mow....he sided with corruption and dishonesty.
Furthermore, he continues to actively condone and accept the withholding of public records from citizens.

Now he has the nerve to whine and moan that a citizen dared to challenge him at the library.
He wants people to show him mercy by forgetting about his role in this heist.
When it was time for the hospital vote, where was David Anderson's mercy for the poor, the elderly, and the sick?

I judge public officials by their actions, not their temperament or family.

Same issue with Mike Summers. He's the Bush of Lakewood. People think he's a "nice guy" and therefore blameless in the hospital giveaway.

He's not really a nice guy. When you knowingly allow a kook to continually harass residents - YOU ARE NOT A NICE GUY.

Michael Deneen wrote:

Jim O'Bryan wrote:David, you are a good man,

JOB repeatedly claims that David Anderson is "a good man".
Based on what, exactly?
I judge public officials by their actions, not their temperament or family.
For example, George W Bush is not a "good man"....he's a guy that killed hundreds of thousands with a fake war. I don't care how nice his kids are, what church he does or doesn't attend, or how much fun he is to "have a beer with".

When the chips were down David Anderson decided to side with corporate interests over his own neighbors.
It doesn't matter whose lawn his kids mow....he sided with corruption and dishonesty.
Furthermore, he continues to actively condone and accept the withholding of public records from citizens.

Now he has the nerve to whine and moan that a citizen dared to challenge him at the library.
He wants people to show him mercy by forgetting about his role in this heist.
When it was time for the hospital vote, where was David Anderson's mercy for the poor, the elderly, and the sick?

Thank You, Michael Dennen.
That needed to be said.

Bridget Conant wrote:Same issue with Mike Summers. He's the Bush of Lakewood.

I think of Summers as more Trump than Bush.
However, you raise a good point.
After all, Summers voted for George W. Bush TWICE! Then he decided to run for city council, so he now pretends to be a Democrat.
He gives campaign checks to Dems, but his policies are pure Republican.

Getting back to the subject of the thread.....Mr. Anderson is defending the Trump policy of government secrecy.
Trump not only won't release his taxes, but he won't allow access to the White House visitor logs.
I fail to see the difference between Trump's position and Mr. Anderson's.....they both think it's OK to keep the public in the dark.