The Observation Deck

The following is your requested statement from Ohio State Senator Michael J. Skindell:

“Open and transparent government is the cornerstone of any democracy and especially local governance. Ohio State Senator Michael J. Skindell is disappointed that the appellate court decided not to address whether Lakewood City Council’s twelve closed door meetings in 2015, which resulted in the adoption of the ordinance closing Lakewood Hospital, violated Ohio’s Sunshine Laws. Rather than addressing whether Lakewood City Council acted appropriately, the appellate court held that the November 2016 referendum vote made any violations of the Ohio Sunshine Laws by Lakewood City Council irrelevant. The appellate court’s ruling may amount to a judicially created loophole which could encourage public entities to violate the Ohio Sunshine Laws. To that end, Senator Skindell is evaluating the best course of action to ensure that the provisions of the Ohio Sunshine Laws are followed including, but not limited to, pursuing an appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court.”

.

I hope he pursues this, for the good of all citizens.

It's an important case and one I believe the Supreme Court may be interested in as it presents an issue that is seemingly at odds with our concept of justice.

If there has been a violation of law, how do you vote it away?

I know of no other situation where a crime or violation can be excused by the assent of citizens, do you?

Bridget Conant wrote:I hope he pursues this, for the good of all citizens.

It's an important case and one I believe the Supreme Court may be interested in as it presents an issue that is seemingly at odds with our concept of justice.

If there has been a violation of law, how do you vote it away?

I know of no other situation where a crime or violation can be excused by the assent of citizens, do you?

I couldn't agree more. When the process was likely tainted, how can the vote be taken into account at all? You had just about all of council campaigning and posing with signs to vote for Issue 64. So the persons who possibly engaged in illegal meetings can campaign to voters to affirm the result of their illegal activity and bygones?

I hope there is an appeal and would hope there is a good government group that would be willing to support it. What has happened in Lakewood is anything but good government and the logic behind this decision presents a dangerous precedent moving forward.

Kate McCarthy wrote:

Bridget Conant wrote:I hope he pursues this, for the good of all citizens.

It's an important case and one I believe the Supreme Court may be interested in as it presents an issue that is seemingly at odds with our concept of justice.

If there has been a violation of law, how do you vote it away?

I know of no other situation where a crime or violation can be excused by the assent of citizens, do you?

I couldn't agree more. When the process was likely tainted, how can the vote be taken into account at all? You had just about all of council campaigning and posing with signs to vote for Issue 64. So the persons who possibly engaged in illegal meetings can campaign to voters to affirm the result of their illegal activity and bygones?

I hope there is an appeal and would hope there is a good government group that would be willing to support it. What has happened in Lakewood is anything but good government and the logic behind this decision presents a dangerous precedent moving forward.

I couldn't agree more with both of you. I applaud Senator Skindell's efforts at insisting on open, transparent government.
What a contrast with Lakewood's City Council."The Council of Heroes". The shadow government. Convening in that backroom. Time and again defecating on fundamental principles of democracy.
Lakewood rots from the head down, from Summers/ Butler through O'Leary/ Bullock and on.
Rot like this takes it's toll. It exacts a price from us all.


2017- Marx. Bullock. Nowlin. Make them pay. Kick them to the curb.

All -

This thread was brought to my attention tonight and I feel compelled to respond.

On December 21, 2015, Judge Friedman held a hearing on Sen. Skindell’s lawsuit and dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice (Sen. Skindell can’t file another case on the same claim) on the merits of the case – or lack thereof. So, as I did last year, I provide Judge Friedman’s final order below.

CASE CALLED FOR HEARING ON DECEMBER 21, 2015. ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD AND PARTIES APPEARED. TESTIMONY WAS TAKEN AND EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED. THE COURT NOTES THAT, UNDER THE PRESSURE OF THE MOMENT, THE COURT INADVERTENTLY STATED INCORRECTLY THAT IT WAS CONSOLIDATING THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING WITH A HEARING ON A PERMANENT INJUNCTION. INSTEAD, THE COURT INTENDED TO GRANT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING WITH A TRIAL ON THE MERITS PURSUANT TO CIVIL RULE 65(B)(2). DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE IS GRANTED, OVER OBJECTIONS BY PLAINTIFF.

THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: COUNT 1 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AS PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WAS PREVIOUSLY DENIED, COUNT 1 IS MOOT. COUNT 2 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FOR THE REASONS NOTED AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS DENIED. COUNT 3 DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THE COURT FINDS THAT THE EXECUTIVE SESSIONS WERE NOT UNLAWFUL IN THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO EVIDENCE PRESENTED THAT ANY DELIBERATIONS OCCURRED OR ACTIONS TAKEN IN VIOLATION OF R.C. § 121.22(A). FURTHER, ANY DELIBERATIONS THAT TOOK PLACE WERE EXPRESSLY PERMITTED IN THE LIGHT OF THE PENDING LAWSUIT CV-15-846212 BEFORE JUDGE JOHN P. O'DONNELL. COUNT 4 DECLARATORY JUDGMENT INASMUCH AS NO ACTION WAS TAKEN OR DECISION REACHED IN VIOLATION OF R.C. § 121.22(A), THE MASTER AGREEMENT WAS NOT PROCEDURALLY INVALID. THE COURT NOTES IN THIS REGARD THAT THE VALIDITY VEL NON OF THE MASTER AGREEMENT ON ITS MERITS IS THE SUBJECT IF THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE JUDGE O'DONNELL. COUNT 5 PERMANENT INJUNCTION HAVING FOUND THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM THAT THE LAKEWOOD CITY COUNCIL FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT, THE PRAYER AS TO COUNT 5 FAILS TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM.

BASED UPON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, THE COURT FINDS THAT PLAINTIFF'S PRAYER FOR A CIVIL FORFEITURE, COSTS, REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES, AND "ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL RELIEF" IS MOOT. CASE IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AT PLAINTIFF'S COSTS. FINAL. COURT COST ASSESSED TO THE PLAINTIFF(S).

Folks certainly have the right to disagree with Council's decision and I know my post does not fit the narrative offered on the OD, but I hope this puts an end at least to the unsupported but oft repeated allegation that Council acted illegally or that there was a "violation of law" as some have written on this thread. Judge Friedman ruled that there was no such violation.

There is a thread out there to this point from last November.

Yours in service,
David W. Anderson
Member of Council - Ward One

David Anderson wrote:All -

This thread was brought to my attention tonight and I feel compelled to respond.

On December 21, 2015, Judge Friedman held a hearing on Sen. Skindell’s lawsuit and dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice (Sen. Skindell can’t file another case on the same claim) on the merits of the case – or lack thereof. So, as I did last year, I provide Judge Friedman’s final order below.

CASE CALLED FOR HEARING ON DECEMBER 21, 2015. ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD AND PARTIES APPEARED. TESTIMONY WAS TAKEN AND EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED. THE COURT NOTES THAT, UNDER THE PRESSURE OF THE MOMENT, THE COURT INADVERTENTLY STATED INCORRECTLY THAT IT WAS CONSOLIDATING THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING WITH A HEARING ON A PERMANENT INJUNCTION. INSTEAD, THE COURT INTENDED TO GRANT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING WITH A TRIAL ON THE MERITS PURSUANT TO CIVIL RULE 65(B)(2). DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE IS GRANTED, OVER OBJECTIONS BY PLAINTIFF.

THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: COUNT 1 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AS PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WAS PREVIOUSLY DENIED, COUNT 1 IS MOOT. COUNT 2 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FOR THE REASONS NOTED AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS DENIED. COUNT 3 DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THE COURT FINDS THAT THE EXECUTIVE SESSIONS WERE NOT UNLAWFUL IN THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO EVIDENCE PRESENTED THAT ANY DELIBERATIONS OCCURRED OR ACTIONS TAKEN IN VIOLATION OF R.C. § 121.22(A). FURTHER, ANY DELIBERATIONS THAT TOOK PLACE WERE EXPRESSLY PERMITTED IN THE LIGHT OF THE PENDING LAWSUIT CV-15-846212 BEFORE JUDGE JOHN P. O'DONNELL. COUNT 4 DECLARATORY JUDGMENT INASMUCH AS NO ACTION WAS TAKEN OR DECISION REACHED IN VIOLATION OF R.C. § 121.22(A), THE MASTER AGREEMENT WAS NOT PROCEDURALLY INVALID. THE COURT NOTES IN THIS REGARD THAT THE VALIDITY VEL NON OF THE MASTER AGREEMENT ON ITS MERITS IS THE SUBJECT IF THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE JUDGE O'DONNELL. COUNT 5 PERMANENT INJUNCTION HAVING FOUND THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM THAT THE LAKEWOOD CITY COUNCIL FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT, THE PRAYER AS TO COUNT 5 FAILS TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM.

BASED UPON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, THE COURT FINDS THAT PLAINTIFF'S PRAYER FOR A CIVIL FORFEITURE, COSTS, REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES, AND "ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL RELIEF" IS MOOT. CASE IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AT PLAINTIFF'S COSTS. FINAL. COURT COST ASSESSED TO THE PLAINTIFF(S).

Folks certainly have the right to disagree with Council's decision and I know my post does not fit the narrative offered on the OD, but I hope this puts an end at least to the unsupported but oft repeated allegation that Council acted illegally or that there was a "violation of law" as some have written on this thread. Judge Friedman ruled that there was no such violation.

There is a thread out there to this point from last November.

Yours in service,
David W. Anderson
Member of Council - Ward One

Mr. Anderson,

A jury in a criminal case decided that O.J. Simpson was not guilty of killing two people. That judgment stands as valid judgment to this day.

Do you believe that the judgment stand for the factual truth that O. J. Simpson did not kill two people?

If you had shown up on December 21, 2015 and testified as to what you told me on December 5, 2015 and what you told me and others on December 7, 2015, before "deliberations" began, then Mr. O'Leary's testimony on December 21, 2015 was clearly false. In fact, as you are well aware, there is much documentary evidence that has come to light since the "trial" that points to Mr. O'Leary's testimony as false and misleading apart from you avoiding taking the stand.

BTW, Why was it that you did not show up to testify on December 21, 2015 as requested by Mr. Skindell's counsel?

Could it be that you and/or the City had something to hide in the context of a case about open government that was damaging to the case?

So Judge Friedman's ruling was made: (1) only one business day after the case was filed, (2) after only a handful of hours of testimony, (3) after he failed to tell the parties it was a "trial" on the merits until AFTER the "trial" and (4) after no discovery was allowed---a very unusual "trial" that the Appellate Court never made any findings about.

So, like the O.J. judgment and thousands of other court rulings where the truth comes to light outside of the court, the ruling is simply not definitive as to the truth about what you and Council actually did.

Mr. Anderson, If you are so comfortable with what you all did, why do you repeatedly hide behind the hasty ruling?

Ans why won't you and the city release the public records concerning what you did so the public can have the the same comfort you have?

Let's not kid ourselves, folks. Any "ruling" made in virtually any courtroom in Cuyahoga County should likely be taken with the most minute grain of salt. When our city officials appear to have cronies at Cuyahoga County from the top down, it would be virtually impossible to get a clean, fair, untainted ruling anywhere in the county. Even Judge Stuart A. Friedman probably should have recused himself. For example, a Lakewood law firm that has been a campaign contributor to Michael P. Summers and some of our councilmen gave $200 to Friedman. McGinty, Hilow & Spellacy also donated to Friedman.

Since we are more on the topic of the appellate court "ruling", this is who donated to Judge McCormack, one of the appellate court judges that oversaw this case. The other two judges apparently climbed their way up the ladder without ever running an opposed campaign:

- $1,000 from Thompson Hine.
- $1,000 from Raymond P. Park (Cleveland Clinic Board of Trustees)
- $5,000 from Barbara Mixon (wife of Malachi Mixon, a higher-up on CCF's Board of Trustees)
- $500 from Albert Rater (relative of CCF Board of Trustees member)
- $500 from Sam H. Miller from Forest City & CCF, now age 96).
- McCormack have $3,500 to Rick Foran for "campaign consulting services". (Jay's relative?)

Don't let the good councilman fool you, folks. Any excuse now appears to be an act of desperation. A fitting analogy may be like closing the barn door after the horses escaped. The Friedman "ruling" was likely not an impartial ruling. The appellate court ruling appears to be even less impartial. From his campaign contributions, one may think that Appellate Court Judge McCormack is another member of the same old company.

David A.,

Sometimes things that public officials do, which may not be technically illegal (yet), are just plain wrong. They fly in the face of open government and reek of insider corruption. Meeting in behind closed doors, contrary to the reasons laid out in the city charter, is one of them. Meeting behind closed doors to facilitate the privatizing of public assets is another. You work for US(!)...something you and the rest of council have forgotten.

It seems the law has to play "catch up" in this case, as is usually the case. After all, which came first, the crime or the law preventing the crime? The crime of course.

I think you realize this or you wouldn't have to slink around Lakewood with your head down.

This whole episode has been a huge failure of Lakewood's city government at every level.

Re-imagine? Re-imagine doing the RIGHT thing for once!

David Anderson wrote:I know my post does not fit the narrative offered on the OD

What about the narrative offered by Councilman David Anderson? He declared in 2015 that "The resulting [first] lawsuit and proposed Charter amendment are the results of individuals not having faith and confidence in the process." Regarding whether or not their reasons for so doing were valid, he stated that:

David Anderson wrote: I find much of the information provided to Council and the community to be unclear, less than thorough and not entirely unbiased. … Overlooking the biases, the lack of clarity and not being attentive or receptive to alternative viewpoints early in Council’s process have been interpreted by some as a less than stellar process leading toward a predetermined outcome.

In addition, I feel the imperfect process over the last couple of years has led many in our community to express a lack of confidence in the option of replacing Lakewood’s full service hospital with a Family Health Center. Many believe this is a backroom deal cloaked in secrecy. While I do not believe that, necessarily, what I do believe is that if residents’ faith and trust in the way the city conducts business erodes, then we have much more to lose than a hospital. http://lakewoodobserver.com/read/2015/0 ... econd-term

In summary: The process was imperfect; information provided to the community was incomplete, unclear and partly biased; alternative viewpoints were shut out.

I asked once, before: has this situation been corrected? If so, when and how did that take place? If not, when and why did Councilman Anderson decide that it was acceptable after all?

More than three months later, I see no replies from the councilman who ostentatiously signs his correspondence "yours in service."

I have no doubt that history will judge Mr. Skindell very well.
He has fought for openness and transparency.

Much like Trump, Mr. Anderson and the rest of "Team Summers" will not be looked upon favorably in ten years.
In the end, the truth always comes out.

When looking at the campaign contributions for these judges that I listed previously in this thread,it makes it clear about the cronyism between Summers and Extended Company and the Cuyahoga County Courts System. These judges should have recused themselves. It is time to move ALL of these city and hospital lawsuits to another county.

It disgusted me to see Mr. Anderson posting here on the Deck as if his and his friend's alleged "wrong doings" were justified. When driving through Lakewood and witnessing the decay, you have to wonder what ALL of our Council persons are doing to help us and our quality of life.

Council traded in what could have been a rewarding job to help their citizens and community for alleged public corruption. Shame on you all! Summers and Council need to resign NOW!

Lori Allen _ wrote:When looking at the campaign contributions for these judges that I listed previously in this thread,it makes it clear about the cronyism between Summers and Extended Company and the Cuyahoga County Courts System. These judges should have recused themselves.

If these campaign contributions required recusal on the part of the judges involved, then the case would likely need to be transferred out of the County.

That is not the case.

It is dangerous business to connect campaign contributions to rulings by judges and draw a conclusion of bias on the part of a judge.

For example, if Thompson Hine's contributions required a judge to recuse herself, then a judge could not hear a case argued by a Thompson Hine attorney or every case heard would be somehow tainted.

Again, that is not the law.

Brian Essi wrote:

Lori Allen _ wrote:When looking at the campaign contributions for these judges that I listed previously in this thread,it makes it clear about the cronyism between Summers and Extended Company and the Cuyahoga County Courts System. These judges should have recused themselves.

If these campaign contributions required recusal on the part of the judges involved, then the case would likely need to be transferred out of the County.

That is not the case.

It is dangerous business to connect campaign contributions to rulings by judges and draw a conclusion of bias on the part of a judge.

For example, if Thompson Hine's contributions required a judge to recuse herself, then a judge could not hear a case argued by a Thompson Hine attorney or every case heard would be somehow tainted.

Again, that is not the law.

Are you saying that the system is hopelessly corrupted?

Brian Essi wrote:If these campaign contributions required recusal on the part of the judges involved, then the case would likely need to be transferred out of the County.

Informative—thanks!

If these campaign contributions required recusal on the part of the judges involved, then the case would likely need to be transferred out of the County.

Thank you. Case in point.

Mike Summers' neighbor, Judge John P. O'Donnell, was supposed to be a straight-up, honest and fair guy, right? Where are we now? 1 year and 9 months into the original filing on the Ed Graham lawsuit and we are still not past the pre-trial stage. By the time O'Donnell decides to move the case along in a timely fashion, he will be hobbling his way into the courtroom with a cane as an old man.

Many people thought Councilperson Cynthia A. Marx was on the side of saving the hospital, right? Wrong.

Many people thought Councilman David W. Anderson was on the side of saving the hospital, right? Wrong.

Many people thought that Councilman Samuel T. O'Leary may be on the side of saving the hospital, right? Wrong.

For that matter, many people even thought that Councilman Thomas R. Bullock III could be persuaded toward saving the hospital, right? Wrong.

What about Mark A. Schneider? Many people thought that he was the candidate for saving the hospital, right? Wrong. Where is he now? Possibly back in Mentor?

Many people thought that J.T. Neuffer was another candidate for saving the hospital ,right? Wrong. Where is he now? Indiana.

My point being, I said from the beginning that no council member would be for saving the hospital. That turned out to be true.

Regardless of how you look at it, people, for the most part, do not give money to candidates without expecting something in return. That is politics.

Brian, I know you have worked tirelessly for countless hours, requesting records, doing research, etc. We all appreciate the hours of research that you have shared on the Deck regarding the hospital issue. You have certainly exposed much of the deal that may have gone undetected. Likewise, I have worked for hours researching City Hall and Cuyahoga County and have brought much evidence here to the Deck. Perhaps you haven't had the time to look through all of the research I have conducted regarding alleged cronyism between Michael P. Summers and Cuyahoga County.