The Observation Deck

Posted: **Mon Apr 25, 2016 6:08 am**

Check out the following two documents that show Summers changed his sworn testimony.

The first documents is an "Errata" sheet where he changes 6 answers from the original pages 263-264 of the deposition concerning how LHA was used for political purposes:

Summers Changed His Answers Errata .pdf: (899.05 KiB) Downloaded 215 times

FYI Errata means: "an error in printing or writing" But Summers writes: "Incorrect Answer" on his Errata sheet.

This guy just makes stuff up as he goes along--including the rules of the Courts--Did the court reporter print "No" when Summers said "Yes"? This was not an error in printing.

The full transcript is attached as an exhibit to the court filing below:

2016 Motion to Amend Taxpayer Complaint.pdf: (7.19 MiB) Downloaded 181 times

So he originally said "NO" to questions about how LHA's charitable money was used for his personal political "campaign" then he fessed up and said "Yes".

Note: Between the time of his deposition and the time he changed his answers, Butler finally produced the Madigan email to Stein (and others) talking about Summers having "LHA take the lead" in the "campaign." Butler delayed producing the emails for over 6 months--months after Summers won the "campaign."
Of course Summers knew all along that LHA was used for political purposes in his "campaign." Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

Telling the truth slowly? Stay tuned for more Summers shuckin' and jivin' as his stories shift like the sands at Clifton Beach.

Posted: **Mon Apr 25, 2016 7:15 am**

Let's hope that justice is served.

Posted: **Mon Apr 25, 2016 7:55 am**

Brian Essi wrote: So he originally said "NO" to questions about how LHA's charitable money was used for his personal political "campaign" then he fessed up and said "Yes".

Brian

Let's be honest, we both know this gets much worse.

What we have seen is the fall from grace of a man who could have been Lakewood's finest mayor.

Instead he developed a thug like mentality and with the help of a couple close friends drove Lakewood, not into a ditch, but into a lake. Now the cover-up of his many failures are starting to rain down on him and the city he claimed to love.

This summer, it gets ugly.

We need to look at the rules of succession, the fallout will be very deep indeed.

.

Posted: **Mon Apr 25, 2016 1:43 pm**

From a Sept 2010 Scene article:
"Like all cities, Lakewood’s charter has a plan for such things: If the Mayor should win higher office, or die, or for some other reason find himself incapable of doing the job, the city’s law director steps in. After that would come the finance director. Then comes public works director. After that the duty falls to the president of city council."

Hmmm. Do we really want him to step down?

Posted: **Mon Apr 25, 2016 2:26 pm**

Dan Alaimo wrote:From a Sept 2010 Scene article:
"Like all cities, Lakewood’s charter has a plan for such things: If the Mayor should win higher office, or die, or for some other reason find himself incapable of doing the job, the city’s law director steps in. After that would come the finance director. Then comes public works director. After that the duty falls to the president of city council."

Hmmm. Do we really want him to step down?

Dan

Hard to say if any ar left when the air clears.

These are the changes that were suggested, I call it the "please let me appoint Dru clause"

SECTION 8. ACTING AND INTERIM MAYOR.

(A) Temporary Absence. When the Mayor is absent and inaccessible, or is unable for any cause to perform the duties of the office of Mayor, the person designated by ordinance or resolution of Council shall be the Acting Mayor until the Mayor resumes the office.

If the Mayor does not resume the office within sixty (60) days, Council may declare the office vacant and appoint an Interim Mayor as specified in subsection (B) of this section.

(B) Vacancy in the Office of Mayor. In the case of the death, resignation or removal of the Mayor or the Mayor ceasing to reside within the City, Council shall appoint an Interim Mayor. Until the Council meets and appoints, by a majority vote of its members, a person qualified to be an elective officer of this City to serve as Interim Mayor, the Acting Mayor shall assume the duties of the office. The appointment of an Interim Mayor shall be made within sixty (60) days of such vacancy.

The term of any Interim Mayor filling such a vacancy shall expire at the end of the unexpired term of the former Mayor if that vacancy occurs two (2) years and one hundred five (105) days or less before the next regular election to be held for the office of Mayor, or otherwise until his or her successor is elected and qualified at the next regular municipal election. Any vacancy that results from a recall election shall be filled in the manner provided by Article XXII of this Charter. (Amended 11-8-11)

This came about from Charter Review looking at people getting appointed to Mayor's position, and saying no thank you because they make more in their other position.

Actually, it came about from desperation to get another unelectable person in office so they could run as an incumbent. (stay tuned)

Believe me, the fix is in, and City Hall doesn't trust us residents with voting, unless they have to.

.

Posted: **Mon Apr 25, 2016 2:54 pm**

Dan Alaimo wrote:From a Sept 2010 Scene article: "Like all cities, Lakewood’s charter has a plan for such things: If the Mayor should win higher office, or die, or for some other reason find himself incapable of doing the job, the city’s law director steps in. After that would come the finance director. Then comes public works director. After that the duty falls to the president of city council."

Can Butler be Mayor when working for Brooklyn?

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Actually, it came about from desperation to get another unelectable person in office so they could run as an incumbent...Believe me, the fix is in, and City Hall doesn't trust us residents with voting, unless they have to.

The trick for politicians so inclined is to control the office, the resources, and the narrative until such time that the interest of the public, or the statute of limitations, has passed on by.

Posted: **Tue Apr 26, 2016 6:54 am**

Back to the point of the post:

Summers was the leader of a charitable organization (LHA) and he used his position and status to secretly divert charitable money for his own personal political gain.

That money was earmarked for the healthcare of Lakewood residents, including the poor--is was the mission of LHA!

And, of course, he concealed it and lied about it.

He is despicable.

He is morally reprehensible.

He is unfit to hold office.

Posted: **Tue Apr 26, 2016 12:47 pm**

Jim O'Bryan wrote:
This summer, it gets ugly.

We need to look at the rules of succession, the fallout will be very deep indeed.

.

What will bring the kettle to a boil this summer? Probably not the SLH lawsuit as that is likely to drag on for longer than that.

Posted: **Tue Apr 26, 2016 2:36 pm**

Jim O'Bryan wrote:
Dan Alaimo wrote:From a Sept 2010 Scene article:
"Like all cities, Lakewood’s charter has a plan for such things: If the Mayor should win higher office, or die, or for some other reason find himself incapable of doing the job, the city’s law director steps in. After that would come the finance director. Then comes public works director. After that the duty falls to the president of city council."

Hmmm. Do we really want him to step down?
Dan

Hard to say if any ar left when the air clears.

These are the changes that were suggested, I call it the "please let me appoint Dru clause"

SECTION 8. ACTING AND INTERIM MAYOR.

(A) Temporary Absence. When the Mayor is absent and inaccessible, or is unable for any cause to perform the duties of the office of Mayor, the person designated by ordinance or resolution of Council shall be the Acting Mayor until the Mayor resumes the office.

If the Mayor does not resume the office within sixty (60) days, Council may declare the office vacant and appoint an Interim Mayor as specified in subsection (B) of this section.

(B) Vacancy in the Office of Mayor. In the case of the death, resignation or removal of the Mayor or the Mayor ceasing to reside within the City, Council shall appoint an Interim Mayor. Until the Council meets and appoints, by a majority vote of its members, a person qualified to be an elective officer of this City to serve as Interim Mayor, the Acting Mayor shall assume the duties of the office. The appointment of an Interim Mayor shall be made within sixty (60) days of such vacancy.

The term of any Interim Mayor filling such a vacancy shall expire at the end of the unexpired term of the former Mayor if that vacancy occurs two (2) years and one hundred five (105) days or less before the next regular election to be held for the office of Mayor, or otherwise until his or her successor is elected and qualified at the next regular municipal election. Any vacancy that results from a recall election shall be filled in the manner provided by Article XXII of this Charter. (Amended 11-8-11)

This came about from Charter Review looking at people getting appointed to Mayor's position, and saying no thank you because they make more in their other position.

Actually, it came about from desperation to get another unelectable person in office so they could run as an incumbent. (stay tuned)

Believe me, the fix is in, and City Hall doesn't trust us residents with voting, unless they have to.

.

Jim,

Your excerpt from the Charter is accurate. Your comments are not.

The 2011 Charter changes were not the result of a formal Charter review. Those changes were the result of Council wanting to make some needed changes. For example, there were some mechanical problems related to what a quorum might be for Council in certain voting situations. As you recall, there were places in the Charter that defined how many "elected" members of Council would have to vote in the affirmative to pass legislation of certain items. At that time, there were three appointed members of Council. If the Charter was read literally, the appointed members of Council could not vote on those issues. The "elected" qualifications were removed and the changes gave equal voting power to all members of Council and erased certain liabilities related to the previous way.

In 2011 Council contacted me for some Charter help. I got Dr. Larry Keller involved. We assisted Council with drafting for that "elected" problem and some others issues related to home rule. Council asked Larry and me if we had any other parts we would like to address. We chose a few, including mayoral succession, investigative powers of the mayor, and something else that I don't recall right now.

The 2011 amendments were placed on the ballot and passed by Lakewood voters.

The change in the succession process was not "from desperation" or about appointing any particular person. It was meant to protect the city and slow down the remedy process in the event of an absence of a mayor. You may recall that there was no such thing as an "Interim Mayor" in our Charter before 2011.

There was no "fix" in. Like anything else done with pure intent, there can later be abuses of any system in place. Abuse can't be completely controlled by any document.

I still stand by the Charter remedy for succession as mechanically superior to the previous method.

Steve

.

Posted: **Tue Apr 26, 2016 4:17 pm**

Steve:

How about the Third Amended Charter that was signed off by the commission in AUGUST 2014--almost a year and a half before City Council approved the closing of the hospital. The document I was given had all of the references to the hospital missing. Did some of you folks know then something foul and putrid was about to happen? If the section of the hospital was removed, who told you folks to do it? I look forward to a speedy reply.

Posted: **Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:36 pm**

tom monahan wrote:Steve:

How about the Third Amended Charter that was signed off by the commission in AUGUST 2014--almost a year and a half before City Council approved the closing of the hospital. The document I was given had all of the references to the hospital missing. Did some of you folks know then something foul and putrid was about to happen? If the section of the hospital was removed, who told you folks to do it? I look forward to a speedy reply.

I am a born recalcitrant. Friends and family will attest that I rarely respond well to being told what to do. I will admit that the removal of the hospital article was as much my idea as anyone else's. I was unaware of "foul and putrid".

I have worked on every Lakewood Charter review and almost every Charter amendment since early 1999. I've was on the Citizens Governance Task Force formed by Council in 1999 to function as a Charter Commission. That resulted in the 2nd Amended Charter. I've been on two Charter Commissions since. I was also a member of a citizen initiative committee of five that put the Charter amendment on the ballot that changed Lakewood's partisan elections for mayor and council to non-partisan. I have also assisted Council on numerous occasions to craft Amendments.

By Charter, there is a Charter Commission appointed every ten years to do an intensive six-month review and make recommendations to Council. Council may or may not put any recommendations on a ballot for voters. It is ultimately Council's choice as to what goes on the ballot and what the language will be. Citizens may also initiate a Charter amendment as prescribed in the Charter.

Generally, the goal in a Charter review is to see if the Charter is up to date with current law and practices and to see if there is anything in it that is confusing or detrimental to the future of the city. Because there is ten years between Charter Commissions, it is important to be forward thinking.

I will only speak for myself here, NOT for my peer commissioners. It has been a long goal of mine and others to reduce the size of Lakewood's Charter. It is bloated with a lot of elements that shouldn't be there. Many parts should be changed to ordinances. I can't express here my seventeen years of study and debate relative to all of the changes that have been suggested or made. I can say that, in my opinion, we need a Charter that makes the city more nimble in changing times with challenging mandates and economies.

With that in mind, some, including me, considering that the hospital contract would end in 2026, agreed that eliminating the hospital provision would make it easier for Council to determine the disposition of the hospital at that time. Another Charter Commission would not start working until 2024. I don't know if anyone on the Commission knew of the upcoming demise of the hospital. I surely didn't.

I believe there is still a paragraph about the hospital in the proposed new 3rd Amended Charter. I think it should come out. It is irrelevant.

The point is, there was no conspiracy that I was aware of among the commissioners.

Regarding the current Charter, I am of the opinion that the hospital is protected by it. I had a discussion with Kevin Butler about this after the closing was announced. Without actually looking up and posting the actual language here, I will argue that the current provision states that the city either runs a hospital or leases it. To me, it is either/or. Kevin would argue that the word "may" in the first paragraph means the city may or may not operate a hospital, but doesn't have to do either. I would argue that the historic context of the city's investment in the hospital means that the city may run a hospital, and if not, they may lease the hospital, and if not that, go back to running a hospital.

I was surprised that none of the Save Lakewood Hospital people ever challenged the city's interpretation of the Charter.

Again, a document/charter/constitution/ordinance/law cannot provide all the protections everyone demands. We live in a representative democracy. If we over-define or restrict government's functions, it simply cannot function. A balance is needed between protection and function. To achieve that, we have to have some trust AND elect the right people. Public trust is critical in a representative government. Unfortunately, the trust can be broken, and citizen remedies may come from a courtroom or a voting booth.

.

Posted: **Wed Apr 27, 2016 12:13 pm**

Steve, thanks for your insight into the charter and hospital. It's great to hear from people with specific and expert knowledge in the matter.

Posted: **Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:03 pm**

stephen davis wrote: Jim,

Your excerpt from the Charter is accurate. Your comments are not.

The 2011 Charter changes were not the result of a formal Charter review. Those changes were the result of Council wanting to make some needed changes. For example, there were some mechanical problems related to what a quorum might be for Council in certain voting situations. As you recall, there were places in the Charter that defined how many "elected" members of Council would have to vote in the affirmative to pass legislation of certain items. At that time, there were three appointed members of Council. If the Charter was read literally, the appointed members of Council could not vote on those issues. The "elected" qualifications were removed and the changes gave equal voting power to all members of Council and erased certain liabilities related to the previous way.

There was no "fix" in. Like anything else done with pure intent, there can later be abuses of any system in place. Abuse can't be completely controlled by any document.

I still stand by the Charter remedy for succession as mechanically superior to the previous method.

Steve

.

Steve

My memories were pretty good, about needing to get succession away from a line of people that would neither want it or could afford the loss taking the job. Which of course gets a back to a City Manager, who might have done the same thing, but in open, because he would not be able to just make BS up.

I do remember you talking with Kevin about the wording, and the discussion that followed. I also remember you stating as you did here, "Like anything else done with pure intent, there can later be abuses of any system in place. Abuse can't be completely controlled by any document." For as long as you have been on Charter Review I know that both you and Larry Keller have worked to make it a shorter simpler easier to use document, Giving latitude to elected officials as they answer to the voters, which in a perfect world is true.

But looking back, with where suggestions came from and as you remembered here, "Those changes were the result of Council wanting to make some needed changes. " what other changes made had been innocently made by the Mayor, mayoral appointments, or the law director and/or council members that dropped in?

More to another point...
"I am a born recalcitrant. Friends and family will attest that I rarely respond well to being told what to do. I will admit that the removal of the hospital article was as much my idea as anyone else's."

This is very true, while I am neither friend nor family, more like a damn good acquaintance (#3), this statement is bankable. He reacts very badly to input, and I remember him during the period of time talking about the hospital and the city running the hospital.

Tom, I am not sure about you, or your thought process, but the driving thought behind all of this in the charter, and how Butler, the Mayor and others sold this at the time was, "Let's be honest, the city is in no way capable of running a hospital." That was the mantra, which on the face is 100% true. This group is proving they can do little more than keep our property values up, which is a good thing they do. They could not run a hospital. Of course now we realize we not only had 1 group to run the hospital we had 2, that sold us out, we had over $179 million in the bank to help run the publicly owned hospital.

So, with the very real statement, City Hall is terrible at management, they grabbed the money, divided it up, and left us holding the bag.

Funny, Lakewood's best mayor ever, EVER, just got done serving two years in prison. Seems like an easy enough record to beat.

.

.

Posted: **Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:43 pm**

Jim O'Bryan wrote:
stephen davis wrote: Jim,

Your excerpt from the Charter is accurate. Your comments are not.

The 2011 Charter changes were not the result of a formal Charter review. Those changes were the result of Council wanting to make some needed changes. For example, there were some mechanical problems related to what a quorum might be for Council in certain voting situations. As you recall, there were places in the Charter that defined how many "elected" members of Council would have to vote in the affirmative to pass legislation of certain items. At that time, there were three appointed members of Council. If the Charter was read literally, the appointed members of Council could not vote on those issues. The "elected" qualifications were removed and the changes gave equal voting power to all members of Council and erased certain liabilities related to the previous way.

There was no "fix" in. Like anything else done with pure intent, there can later be abuses of any system in place. Abuse can't be completely controlled by any document.

I still stand by the Charter remedy for succession as mechanically superior to the previous method.

Steve

.

Steve

My memories were pretty good, about needing to get succession away from a line of people that would neither want it or could afford the loss taking the job. Which of course gets a back to a City Manager, who might have done the same thing, but in open, because he would not be able to just make BS up.

I do remember you talking with Kevin about the wording, and the discussion that followed. I also remember you stating as you did here, "Like anything else done with pure intent, there can later be abuses of any system in place. Abuse can't be completely controlled by any document." For as long as you have been on Charter Review I know that both you and Larry Keller have worked to make it a shorter simpler easier to use document, Giving latitude to elected officials as they answer to the voters, which in a perfect world is true.

But looking back, with where suggestions came from and as you remembered here, "Those changes were the result of Council wanting to make some needed changes. " what other changes made had been innocently made by the Mayor, mayoral appointments, or the law director and/or council members that dropped in?

More to another point...
"I am a born recalcitrant. Friends and family will attest that I rarely respond well to being told what to do. I will admit that the removal of the hospital article was as much my idea as anyone else's."

This is very true, while I am neither friend nor family, more like a damn good acquaintance (#3), this statement is bankable. He reacts very badly to input, and I remember him during the period of time talking about the hospital and the city running the hospital.

Tom, I am not sure about you, or your thought process, but the driving thought behind all of this in the charter, and how Butler, the Mayor and others sold this at the time was, "Let's be honest, the city is in no way capable of running a hospital." That was the mantra, which on the face is 100% true. This group is proving they can do little more than keep our property values up, which is a good thing they do. They could not run a hospital. Of course now we realize we not only had 1 group to run the hospital we had 2, that sold us out, we had over $179 million in the bank to help run the publicly owned hospital.

So, with the very real statement, City Hall is terrible at management, they grabbed the money, divided it up, and left us holding the bag.

Funny, Lakewood's best mayor ever, EVER, just got done serving two years in prison. Seems like an easy enough record to beat.

Seeing how Mayor Sinagra had health problems maybe leniency was shown, so like you said it should be easy to beat.

.

Posted: **Wed Apr 27, 2016 4:23 pm**

Jim O'Bryan wrote:But looking back, with where suggestions came from and as you remembered here, "Those changes were the result of Council wanting to make some needed changes. " what other changes made had been innocently made by the Mayor, mayoral appointments, or the law director and/or council members that dropped in?

Jim,

The 1999 Citizens Governance Taskforce Charter Review was really a follow-up to the 1994 Charter Commission. If I recall correctly, the '94 Commission did not result in any amendments going to the ballot. Mayor Cain and Council were interested in major updating. Prior to the 2nd Amended Charter of 1999, the Charter was very antiquated. It still referred to voting by marking an "X" on a ballot with a pencil, even though voting had not been done that way for many years. There were references to harbors, farms, crematories smoke inspectors, etc. (I wish I could remember some of the humorous items.). Much of it was decades out of date. The 2nd Amended Charter eliminated many of the antiquities AND made the Charter gender neutral. Before that, the mayor was "he".

In every review that I have participated in, suggestions are encouraged. We have always invited mayors, council members, directors, department heads, judges, other boards and commissions members, and members of the public to bring their concerns and ideas. They don't have to "drop in". It is not a closed process. Ideas come from inside and outside the city. I have interviewed mayors, city managers, other government employees, and citizens from other communities. I, and other commissioners, gathered charters from other communities as resources. We also used material from ICMA and the Model Cities Charter as reference.

Suggestions don't have to be made "innocently", as you say. They are encouraged. Those suggestions are investigated within the context of good government in Lakewood. After investigation and debate, some suggestions are rejected. Some are accepted and incorporated, though they may be highly modified and edited.

Another thing to remember is that Council has the last word on the what amendments are on the ballot, and of course, what the language will be. Some years ago, when Council was revisiting Council and Mayor salaries. Council and the Law Director asked me why, years earlier, the Commission treated both salaries differently relative to cost of living adjustments, as spelled out in the Charter. They said it would have been better if we had treated both the same. My answer was that the Commission did treat both the same, but the Council of the time modified our proposed amendment in a way that made them different. The modified version was approved by voters. Oh, well.

Steve

.

The Observation Deck

Ever Shifting Stories: Summers Changes Answers Given Under Oath.

Ever Shifting Stories: Summers Changes Answers Given Under Oath.

Re: Ever Shifting Stories: Summers Changes Answers Given Under Oath.

Re: Ever Shifting Stories: Summers Changes Answers Given Under Oath.

Re: Ever Shifting Stories: Summers Changes Answers Given Under Oath.

Re: Ever Shifting Stories: Summers Changes Answers Given Under Oath.

Re: Ever Shifting Stories: Summers Changes Answers Given Under Oath.

Re: Ever Shifting Stories: Summers Changes Answers Given Under Oath.

Re: Ever Shifting Stories: Summers Changes Answers Given Under Oath.

Re: Ever Shifting Stories: Summers Changes Answers Given Under Oath.

Re: Ever Shifting Stories: Summers Changes Answers Given Under Oath.

Re: Ever Shifting Stories: Summers Changes Answers Given Under Oath.

Re: Ever Shifting Stories: Summers Changes Answers Given Under Oath.

Re: Ever Shifting Stories: Summers Changes Answers Given Under Oath.

Re: Ever Shifting Stories: Summers Changes Answers Given Under Oath.

Re: Ever Shifting Stories: Summers Changes Answers Given Under Oath.