The Observation Deck

The case of Michael Skindell vs. MAry Louise Madigan has been dismissed.

One of the reasons is that the vote brought on by Save Lakewood Hospital and following election made the case moot.

Stay tuned, for follow-up.


.

Not a surprise....the courts are not going to interfere with the Clinic's plans.
The Bad Guys have won.

This one is a doozy.

As I recall, the motion for dismissal, which proposed that a public referendum cured noncompliance with open meeting laws, also proposed that the demolition of the Lakewood Hospital parking garage made the substance of the referendum itself moot.

As that motion noted, demolition of the parking garage commenced October 24.

The referendum took place on November 8.

Obviously, I am not an attorney or a judge. Nonetheless this timing—combined with the fact that the City of Lakewood officially insisted as far back as Feb. 11, 2016 that a public vote to overturn Ordinance 49-15 would be meaningless—leaves me unclear how said public vote corrected exclusion of the public from deliberation on the issue at hand.

But perhaps a member of city council will be along shortly to spike the ball, and might also explain how anything in this ruling constitutes an affirmative judgment that he and his colleagues honored open meeting law.

While disappointing, this is not a surprise.

All judge's concurred on the ruling, according to the docket. Two of the three of them were members of the "Gallagher Birgade". It seems that all we have in this whole county are Gallagher, Corrigan, O'Donnell, Russo, and Sweeney brigades.

Just skimming through the backgrounds of these three judges, there is evidence that they all should have been recused. More info to come later. What kind are kickback (s) could these judges be getting?

This is just another example of my theory that Summers & Extended Co. have Cuyahoga County and even the judicial system wrapped around their fingers.

In my opinion, this is a rather hollow victory for the city administration. In order to win, they had to file a materially false affidavit with the appellate court and then argue materially false facts in their motion to dismiss. That fact alone exemplifies the general shabbiness of the the entire process from its beginning.

My compliments to Senator Skindell and his legal counsel for their diligent pursuit of these open meeting law violations.

I encourage all members of city council to develop and adopt a comprehensive ethics-in-government policy for the city. This time is now.

Whether Open Meeting laws were broken was not decided in this opinion.

The court apparently accepted the argument that even IF Open Meeting laws WERE violated, the "defect" was "cured" upon the electorate choosing to accept the agreement the council made.

So I guess it's the tyranny of the majority. Even if laws were broken, if enough people say it's OK, it is OK.

That's a rather odd legal idea.

Hollow victories seem to be a theme of this affair.

Lakewood's mayor could have run on a message of "I intend to wind down Lakewood Hospital in favor of an outpatient-based future," instead of assuring voters that Lakewood Hospital "must prepare for its second century."

City council candidates could have run on a message that "we believe that trying to save Lakewood Hospital is futile and our goal will be a modified Letter of Intent scenario," instead of representing themselves as "the loyal opposition" to said scenario.

Proponents of closing the hospital could have represented 2015's proposed charter change as a proxy vote on doing so, instead of criticizing it entirely on other bases, not least a claim that it would in fact "DOOM LAKEWOOD HOSPITAL" and implying that they did not want this result.

Proponents of closing the hospital could, for that matter, have supported the charter change or taken any number of other opportunities to present their desired plan to voters and say "here is what we think Lakewood should do, will you support us?" Instead, after fighting to ensure that Lakewood never had a choice in whether or not the hospital did close — which happened nearly one full year ago despite street signs implying otherwise— they also denied that Lakewood could choose whether or not to reopen it, or in any meaningful way to depart from the modified LOI scenario. Instead, they represented 2016's referendum as a "heads we win, tails you lose" situation in which the fundamental choice at issue had already been made for voters and was immune to meaningful review.

It's entirely possible that had any of these parties done these things—actually gone to voters with their intentions and said "you can choose"—they still would have won and thereby obtained a genuine and powerful mandate. Instead, over and over, they preferred to fight for power on the basis of an array of arguments either parallel to or at odds with their intentions.

With the result that they "won," but only in the most formal sense.

They made the consistent choice to do so, and are obliged to own it.

mjkuhns wrote: It's entirely possible that had any of these parties done these things—actually gone to voters with their intentions and said "you can choose"—they still would have won and thereby obtained a genuine and powerful mandate. Instead, over and over, they preferred to fight for power on the basis of an array of arguments either parallel to or at odds with their intentions.

MJK

The very thing I said to the Mayor back in 2014 and 2015. Explain everything, be honest and you have a good shot honest shot at what you are talking about.

Instead at every turn, they attacked the messenger, never the message, lied, misled, and tried to intimidate.

mjkuhns wrote: With the result that they "won," but only in the most formal sense.

Skindell vs Madigan is not the end.


.

mjkuhns wrote:Hollow victories seem to be a theme of this affair.

Lakewood's mayor could have run on a message of "I intend to wind down Lakewood Hospital in favor of an outpatient-based future," instead of assuring voters that Lakewood Hospital "must prepare for its second century."

City council candidates could have run on a message that "we believe that trying to save Lakewood Hospital is futile and our goal will be a modified Letter of Intent scenario," instead of representing themselves as "the loyal opposition" to said scenario.

Proponents of closing the hospital could have represented 2015's proposed charter change as a proxy vote on doing so, instead of criticizing it entirely on other bases, not least a claim that it would in fact "DOOM LAKEWOOD HOSPITAL" and implying that they did not want this result.

Proponents of closing the hospital could, for that matter, have supported the charter change or taken any number of other opportunities to present their desired plan to voters and say "here is what we think Lakewood should do, will you support us?" Instead, after fighting to ensure that Lakewood never had a choice in whether or not the hospital did close — which happened nearly one full year ago despite street signs implying otherwise— they also denied that Lakewood could choose whether or not to reopen it, or in any meaningful way to depart from the modified LOI scenario. Instead, they represented 2016's referendum as a "heads we win, tails you lose" situation in which the fundamental choice at issue had already been made for voters and was immune to meaningful review.

It's entirely possible that had any of these parties done these things—actually gone to voters with their intentions and said "you can choose"—they still would have won and thereby obtained a genuine and powerful mandate. Instead, over and over, they preferred to fight for power on the basis of an array of arguments either parallel to or at odds with their intentions.

With the result that they "won," but only in the most formal sense.

They made the consistent choice to do so, and are obliged to own it.

Thank you. Beautiful, clear-eyed summary of what went down. Spread the word!

tl;dr version of my comment…

Elections have consequences, but so do campaigns.

On a separate note, I encourage everyone to read "The Futurological Congress" by Stanislaw Lem. (if you can find it!)

Mr. Kindt

Now that I have had a break and read the document over, and see that the case was dismissed, not for ny finding of evidence, guilty or not, but because of the vote.

So that even though Moot, there could still be all the laws being broken we have spoken about for over a year?

Is that correct?

.

To reply to the questions and comments raised on this and the other thread after my posting of Judge Friedman’s, December 2015 dismissal of the lawsuit based on the merits of the case:

Ms. Conant – There was no violation of the law as ruled by Judge Friedman.

Ms. McCarthy – There were no illegal meetings as ruled by Judge Friedman.

Mr. Karslake – There was no crime as ruled by Judge Friedman.

Mr. O’bryan – Judge Friedman dismissed the case specifically on the points of the lawsuit. (The entire transcript of Judge Friedman's hearing is available to the public.)

The Judge stated, “The hearing was replete with as I say rumor, speculation and hearsay as to what was going to happen, what might happen, if this contract or agreement is approved or not approved. The statute requires that public officials take official action and conduct all deliberations upon official business only in open meetings unless the subject matter is specifically accepted by law. The conclusion of this Court is that the official action that is contemplated is what will happen up or down at tonight’s meeting. The law does not state open deliberations. It jus says deliberation – official action and deliberations upon official business and that the meetings must be open. This means the public must be given an opportunity to be present, and one would expect they must be given an opportunity to be heard. I expect that at tonight’s meeting both of those will happen.” The Judge goes on to state “Court finds that there has been no evidence that the executive sessions themselves were unlawful.”

Mr. Essi – I was not asked by my lawyer or the judge to be present at Judge Friedman’s hearing. In addition, Judge Friedman stated “I read the massive amount of material that was presented to me.” Judge Russo previously declined a request for a temporary restraining order. Testimony by Sam O’Leary, Dr. Kilroy and Dean Dilzell all supported Judge Friedman’s determination that the public had participated in the process throughout 2015 an after the ordinance was written and published in December of 2015. Your continued disparaging remarks regarding how Judge Friedman conducted the hearing is disappointing. You seem to not have much respect for the legal process or the judicial branch of government.

Mr. Kuhns – The use of executive session became acceptable to me after the Graham lawsuit was filed and realizing that the Cleveland Clinic legal team was present at virtually every one of the more than 45 or so open and public hearings. In my opinion, it would not have been too smart to discuss strategy regarding the Graham litigation in an open and public forum. Council moved in September of 2015 to authorize the City’s law director to initiate negotiations with the Cleveland Clinic. Council held a number of executive sessions from September to December to receive briefings from the City’s law director and Thompson Hine and provide feedback regarding negotiating points and strategy. You were present for many of the public meetings on this matter and may know that the Cleveland Clinic’s legal team was at virtually every open and public meeting as well. Again, it would not have been too smart for Council to hold open meetings regarding our negotiating strategy with the Cleveland Clinic with the Cleveland Clinic legal team in the room. Judge Friedman stated, “The law director should be given that authority in order to begin the negotiations, and negotiations themselves must be held in private. You don’t have negotiations of this kind conducted in an open forum with members of the public brought in at every state. Much as we want the democrat process to be open, there are points at which it must be open. There are points at which it should not be. In the law, we require the jury deliberations be secret. Grand Jury process is secret not because we’re trying to exclude the public from involvement in public business, but because there are certain aspects of it that cannot proceed in an open forum. What must happen ultimately is that the agreement that has been negotiated should be open to full deliberation in an open meeting with the public given an opportunity to participate. Public will have that opportunity tonight.”


Folks certainly have more than a right to question my judgment and rail against me when it pertains to votes and positions I take. However, I take exception to repeated claims that I committed a crime, acted illegally or violated the law. It has always been my contention that Senator Skindell had used the court system to keep these careless and baseless allegations of illegal and secret meetings going to serve a political purpose. It's worked to a degree as many have bought it hook, line and sinker. Senator Skindell's statement after the second dismissal continues to promote the same cynical claims. THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF SUNSHINE LAWS.

Yours in service,
David W. Anderson
Councilmember, Ward One
216-789-6463
david.anderson@lakewoodoh.net

Regardless what the court ruled we all know that the Lakewood Hospital deal was a HUGE MISTAKE to close it. How can you defend it? You and all your cronies let it happen. I for one disrespect your actions. Are you healthier yet?

Councilman Anderson,

David Anderson wrote:Mr. Kuhns – The use of executive session became acceptable to me after the Graham lawsuit was filed and realizing that the Cleveland Clinic legal team was present at virtually every one of the more than 45 or so open and public hearings.

Graham v. Lakewood was filed May 28, 2015. Four months later you issued a statement that "Process matters," and that in the handling of Lakewood Hospital the process was imperfect; information provided to the community was incomplete, unclear and partly biased; and alternative viewpoints had been shut out.

If you are suggesting that developments which took place well in advance of that statement justified what had previously been less than acceptable, I am unclear why you neglected to highlight your conviction to this effect. Given your concern that citizens have confidence that you, and other elected officials, have acted with propriety, I fail to understand why you made a statement validating doubts on this score if you had already become satisfied of a contrary assessment.

I understand your objection to incidents of railery, badgering, personal attacks on you and colleagues, etc. I hope that I have provided at least some demonstration of my disapproval of such, and of a desire to avoid this in my own critique whether or not I have achieved 100% success in accomplishing that desire. I hope, also, that you can therefore find understanding of both my specific question on this matter, and of the more general reason why I raise it.

This being a belief that distrust of the process, conducted by city council et al., extends beyond a suspicion that the process violated laws. I understand your concern to rebut suggestion that you participated in violating the law. I hope that you understand my proposal that some, and possibly a majority, of the distrust from constituents will never be addressed without acknowledgement—as you seemed to make in September 2015—that a satisfactory process depends upon more than legality alone.

Thank you for taking the time.