The Observation Deck

"The concept underlying the definition of the financial reporting entity is that elected officials are accountable to their constituents for their actions. Because one of the objectives of financial reporting is to provide users of financial statements with a basis for assessing the accountability of those elected officials, the definition of the financial reporting entity should be based on accountability." Governmental Accounting Standards Board.

So why is City Hall running from their CAFR (audit)?

Because it shows they failed us.

They must be held accountable.

Bullock's and Anderson's "accounting" bastardize the true governmental audit (the CAFR).

Vote Against 64! Make them accountable.

...and make the same people go through and do the same process all over again, thus delaying progress of Lakewood for a lengthy amount of time...still with no one else stepping in to bid on the hospital.

The new "line" from City Hall, courtesy of its newest surrogate, Corey.

"Why make us do it all over again?"

Umm, maybe because you screwed it up so badly in the first place?

Seriously, the deal couldn't get any worse. According to Jenn Pae's own warning, the worst outcome would be being stuck with the empty "bricks and mortar" of the crumbling hospital.

And what DID we get? THE EMPTY BRICKS AND MORTAR, which will sit there at least the next three years?

Thanks, Mayor Summers.

Okay, you mention 3 years of a building yet progress going on all around it.

How long does your plan figure to take? First you have to define the plan. Then figure out, and play out, all the lawsuits you have lined up. How long do you figure that will take?

In all of your planning for victory, what is the timeframe for tangible hospital results?

Is a vote against 64 a vote to remove the non-compete clause? That is reason enough there. Removing the non-compete clause opens up the avenues of interest by others.

There were no other bids and no other organizations that wanted to see it through even without the non-compete.

No other hospitals are interested in our hospital.

I have read, more than once, that there was interest. If you've been reading the various threads, you have read that also. Unless the links to the pdf's of emails and excerpts from depositions were fabricated.

Bridget Conant wrote: Umm, maybe because you screwed it up so badly in the first place?

Thanks, Mayor Summers.

Even Mayor Summers admits it was handle terribly.

The fact, no other proposal let two private groups, close friends of the mayor, siphon millions off for their own plans. That is why they were turned down. They would provide health care, one even $10 million a year to the city. But that was the problem. Only one plan gave millions to friends of the Mayor for their secret development plans.

They sold the city's largest asset for a crap shoot, something they have failed at miserably before. This is what the mayor is hiding.

Proof? You can see it in their words and actions.


.

Interest yes, follow through - no. Anyone can show interest until money needs to be put on the table. No organization stepped up to the table. Too much needs to be done at too high a cost for others to move from "interested" to "vested." Thus resulting in no bids on taking over Lakewood Hospital.

Corey Rossen wrote:Interest yes, follow through - no. Anyone can show interest until money needs to be put on the table. No organization stepped up to the table. Too much needs to be done at too high a cost for others to move from "interested" to "vested." Thus resulting in no bids on taking over Lakewood Hospital.

Corey

The Metro proposal was real. It existed, and was turned down.

Because it did not allow the mayor's cronies to siphon off millions of dollars.

This is why, I say Ken Haber told me the truth, he did, but he was only talking about the LHF.

LHF keeps $20-$40 million, The new non-profit for active living gets $16-$20 million. We have no control over it once it gets done.

And the clincher, to paraphrase, I do not have the tape handy.

"All the money in this deal, was ours to begin with. THERE IS NO MONEY COMING TO LAKEWOOD THAT WASN'T OURS TO START WITH.

.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:

Corey Rossen wrote:Interest yes, follow through - no. Anyone can show interest until money needs to be put on the table. No organization stepped up to the table. Too much needs to be done at too high a cost for others to move from "interested" to "vested." Thus resulting in no bids on taking over Lakewood Hospital.

Corey

The Metro proposal was real. It existed, and was turned down.

Because it did not allow the mayor's cronies to siphon off millions of dollars.

This is why, I say Ken Haber told me the truth, he did, but he was only talking about the LHF.

LHF keeps $20-$40 million, The new non-profit for active living gets $16-$20 million. We have no control over it once it gets done.

And the clincher, to paraphrase, I do not have the tape handy.

"All the money in this deal, was ours to begin with. THERE IS NO MONEY COMING TO LAKEWOOD THAT WASN'T OURS TO START WITH.

.

The interest from Metro did not meet your requirements - I did not know you had a vote.

No money on the table, or if it helps you feel better, they were not interested in a way that best fits the city.

"No money on the table, or if it helps you feel better, they were not interested in a way that best fits the city."

No money on the table, or if it helps you feel better, they were not interested in a way that best fits A SELECT FEW of the city. I guess even that is not completely accurate, but does have some truth, as other hospital systems were interested. It is the select few that were not interested in keeping a full service hospital here.

A full service hospital best serves the city. Not transport to a facility miles away,

The "select few" were elected to do this as part of their job.

You could elect AGAINST Lakewood people to do the job and see if they come up with a determination that pleases everyone. I guess it all depends on who the "select few" are.

You could say the same about FOR Lakewood people and see if they make a determination that pleases all people.

It was part of the process to determine what was best, and thus is what was determined what will be best - see how nothing pleases everyone.

"It was part of the process to determine what was best, and thus is what was determined what will be best - see how nothing pleases everyone."

This is very true. But the process has been shown to be extremely flawed. This needs to be corrected as soon, and as fair, as possible.

Robert Bobik wrote:Is a vote against 64 a vote to remove the non-compete clause? That is reason enough there. Removing the non-compete clause opens up the avenues of interest by others.

It removes the non compete Clause.

The defeat of 64 also removes the immunity granted to the Clinic for breach of contract and the immunity to the LHA board for their failure to perform their fiduciary duty.

I am not not sure what affect it has on the City's loss of the $33 million in the Lakewood Hospital Foundation.