The Observation Deck

Skindell v. Madigan is not over yet. Senator Skindell has asked the Cuyahoga Court of Appeals to reconsider their dismissal of his important Open Meetings/Sunshine Law case.

While Sen. Skindell has cited many reasons for his position, the main issue in the "reconsideration" phase of the case is whether the citizens' vote on issue 64 last fall somehow "cured"City Council's violations of the Open Meetings Act.

In an effort to persuade the Court of Appeals not to reconsider its ruling, Law Director Kevin Butler wrote and signed a Court filing that included a MAJOR ADMISSION:

"A cure recognizes that there was a violation, but the harm is cured by subsequent action of the citizens."

I agree with Mr. Butler on this point: Why would the Court of Appeals have ruled that violations were “cured” if there weren’t any violations to “cure”?

I don't agree that the harm Mr. Butler and City Council caused has been "cured" though.

So, there you have it.

While Skindell v. Madigan is still a live case, there is now no doubt that City Council violated the Open Meetings Act. Mr. Anderson's lawyer has flatly refuted what Mr. Anderson was claiming just a week or 2 ago.

So this is Gary Rice's que--for banjo playing so Messrs. Butler, Anderson and I can sing a few bars before Mr. Butler and I go back at each other with the hammers and tongs....

Thanks for update.

Brian Essi wrote:Skindell v. Madigan is not over yet. Senator Skindell has asked the Cuyahoga Court of Appeals to reconsider their dismissal of his important Open Meetings/Sunshine Law case.

While Sen. Skindell has cited many reasons for his position, the main issue in the "reconsideration" phase of the case is whether the citizens' vote on issue 64 last fall somehow "cured"City Council's violations of the Open Meetings Act.

In an effort to persuade the Court of Appeals not to reconsider its ruling, Law Director Kevin Butler wrote and signed a Court filing that included a MAJOR ADMISSION:

"A cure recognizes that there was a violation, but the harm is cured by subsequent action of the citizens."

I agree with Mr. Butler on this point: Why would the Court of Appeals have ruled that violations were “cured” if there weren’t any violations to “cure”?

I don't agree that the harm Mr. Butler and City Council caused has been "cured" though.

So, there you have it.

While Skindell v. Madigan is still a live case, there is now no doubt that City Council violated the Open Meetings Act. Mr. Anderson's lawyer has flatly refuted what Mr. Anderson was claiming just a week or 2 ago.

So this is Gary Rice's que--for banjo playing so Messrs. Butler, Anderson and I can sing a few bars before Mr. Butler and I go back at each other with the hammers and tongs....

So let me get this straight.

While City Hall was fighting in court Sunshine Law violations they knew about and and lied about breaking, were made moot because they stalled long enough to lie to voters and get and election decision they wanted, to "make their illegal actions now legal?"

Huh?

.

Brian Essi wrote:So Mr. Anderson… You said publicly earlier this year that you would change your vote if something was proved to be "illegal" (your words not mine). http://lakewoodobserver.com/forum/viewt ... 58#p172577

I can't personally verify the remark cited by Mr. Essi, but I would like to reintroduce it here on a provisional basis.

If correct, it seems like the community is owed… something, at the very least. Besides "well it's a moot point now." (Variously employing bold and ALL CAPITAL LETTERS in arguing does not suggest sincere belief that the issue involved is moot.)

Jim O'Bryan wrote:

Brian Essi wrote:Skindell v. Madigan is not over yet. Senator Skindell has asked the Cuyahoga Court of Appeals to reconsider their dismissal of his important Open Meetings/Sunshine Law case.

While Sen. Skindell has cited many reasons for his position, the main issue in the "reconsideration" phase of the case is whether the citizens' vote on issue 64 last fall somehow "cured"City Council's violations of the Open Meetings Act.

In an effort to persuade the Court of Appeals not to reconsider its ruling, Law Director Kevin Butler wrote and signed a Court filing that included a MAJOR ADMISSION:

"A cure recognizes that there was a violation, but the harm is cured by subsequent action of the citizens."

I agree with Mr. Butler on this point: Why would the Court of Appeals have ruled that violations were “cured” if there weren’t any violations to “cure”?

I don't agree that the harm Mr. Butler and City Council caused has been "cured" though.

So, there you have it.

While Skindell v. Madigan is still a live case, there is now no doubt that City Council violated the Open Meetings Act. Mr. Anderson's lawyer has flatly refuted what Mr. Anderson was claiming just a week or 2 ago.

So this is Gary Rice's que--for banjo playing so Messrs. Butler, Anderson and I can sing a few bars before Mr. Butler and I go back at each other with the hammers and tongs....

So let me get this straight.

While City Hall was fighting in court Sunshine Law violations they knew about and and lied about breaking, were made moot because they stalled long enough to lie to voters and get and election decision they wanted, to "make their illegal actions now legal?"

Huh?

.

Dr. Jim,

That is a very interesting way of explaining it.

I would express it this way:

While Issue 64 was pending:
1. Mr. Butler and City Council argued before the Court of Appeals (and the public) that they acted entirely within the laws of open meetings.

Since the vote on Issue 64:
1. the Court has ruled that violations of open meetings laws were somehow "cured" by the vote on Issue 64; and
2. Skindell is claiming that the vote on Issue 64 did not "cure" the City Council violations and wants the Court to reconsider the harm caused,
3. Mr. Butler and City Council are now admitting they did violate open meetings laws, but it does not matter because they won the approval of the people by, in part, campaigning on the claim that they did not violate any laws.

This is a bit like the lawyer and his client admitting the client murdered his parents, but claiming the client should not go to jail because he is now an orphan.

Or like the lawyers who won their client's acquittal on murder by reason of the client being "insane" when he killed someone, but the day after acquittal arguing that the client is "cured" so he should be released.


In other words, Mr. Butler and City Council are arguing against any accountability for their unlawful actions.

Not really news in Lakewood...move along, nothing to see...

Brian,

Unfortunately, city hall will continue with all their BS and lies. What a bunch of damn fools. They have told so many lies, that can't keep all of them straight

Keep on using the capital letters. I love them, even though Summers apparently does not!

Did somebody mention my name?

I'd chime in here with lusty zeal, but it's taking a bit more time than I thought to tune up the banjo.

But first, my question about all of this would be a very simple one:

No matter how we may feel about the events of the past several years here in Lakewood...

When all of these lawsuits are said and done, what WILL be the financial costs to our city?

I know, all that's still hypothetical at this point, but golly gee whillikers...

When you think about old Will Shakespeare's quote about letting the dogs of war slip...

...and you add to all of that, how chaos theory could propel litigation...

What COULD be the upside, if any, to all of this?

...and...the potential downsides?

Bankruptcy? Merging with Cleveland?

Just wondering whether some of this stuff could also be used as an opportunity to force greater regionalism upon Lakewood?...

Back to the banjo...

I think Lakewood is, in all honesty, a ways from becoming East Cleveland. For which I am incredibly thankful, given what I have read about that city's problems and heard firsthand from residents of late.

Obviously it's my belief that the selected path for Lakewood Hospital has, nonetheless, moved Lakewood's overall financial prospects in a negative direction.

That said, for now I find it a close call whether this is the biggest loss to our community, or whether that would actually be the "collateral damage" to processes, civic institutions, basic trust, etc. It's hard to assign a number to things like these, of course.

Gary Rice wrote:Did somebody mention my name?

I'd chime in here with lusty zeal, but it's taking a bit more time than I thought to tune up the banjo.

But first, my question about all of this would be a very simple one:

No matter how we may feel about the events of the past several years here in Lakewood...

When all of these lawsuits are said and done, what WILL be the financial costs to our city?

I know, all that's still hypothetical at this point, but golly gee whillikers...

When you think about old Will Shakespeare's quote about letting the dogs of war slip...

...and you add to all of that, how chaos theory could propel litigation...

What COULD be the upside, if any, to all of this?

...and...the potential downsides?

Bankruptcy? Merging with Cleveland?

Just wondering whether some of this stuff could also be used as an opportunity to force greater regionalism upon Lakewood?...

Back to the banjo...

I'd answer with some questions of my own:
* What price do you put on truth?
* What price do you put on justice?
* What price do you put on a fully functional government responsive to the citizens, now and in the future?

Besides, am I right that they have insurance to protect the city from for such judgments?

Dan Alaimo wrote:What COULD be the upside, if any, to all of this? ...and...the potential downsides? Bankruptcy? Merging with Cleveland?

The Regionalists are the ones that pushed the destruction of Lakewood Hospital.
Look no further than Brent Larkin and the PD....they LOVE regionalism in all its forms.

They also backed the destruction of our local market (Nature's Bin) and the destruction of the old Sun Post (into whatever the hell that thing is called now).

Michael Deneen wrote:

Dan Alaimo wrote:What COULD be the upside, if any, to all of this? ...and...the potential downsides? Bankruptcy? Merging with Cleveland?

The Regionalists are the ones that pushed the destruction of Lakewood Hospital.
Look no further than Brent Larkin and the PD....they LOVE regionalism in all its forms.

They also backed the destruction of our local market (Nature's Bin) and the destruction of the old Sun Post (into whatever the hell that thing is called now).

Just fyi, that quote was part of Gary's post.

mjkuhns wrote:Variously employing bold and ALL CAPITAL LETTERS in arguing does not suggest sincere belief that the issue involved is moot.

While we're clarifying fine points, I should note that the above was in reference to Councilman Anderson's protests that, e.g. "THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF SUNSHINE LAWS."

It seems that Butler quite frequently violates his duties as an officer of the court, and an officer of the city. In some bigger picture this is contemptible behavior? It's as though the city law director is less competent than some failed lawyer who advertises on TV?

Gary Rice wrote: When all of these lawsuits are said and done, what WILL be the financial costs to our city? I know, all that's still hypothetical at this point, but golly gee whillikers...

Um, is that really a question for today? This has all been quantified in terms of one-time costs, and in terms of ongoing revenue and economic impact?

cmager wrote:It seems that Butler quite frequently violates his duties as an officer of the court, and an officer of the city. In some bigger picture this is contemptible behavior? It's as though the city law director is less competent than some failed lawyer who advertises on TV?

Gary Rice wrote: When all of these lawsuits are said and done, what WILL be the financial costs to our city? I know, all that's still hypothetical at this point, but golly gee whillikers...

Um, is that really a question for today? This has all been quantified in terms of one-time costs, and in terms of ongoing revenue and economic impact?

Mr. Rice,

Can't wait until the banjo is fully tuned.

The answer to your question is:

1. The price and downside are not hypothetical--they have been documented at $100M+ in immediate asset losses. Loss of rent ($1.2M/year) and income taxes roughly $990K per year into the future are real--the offsets of the "economic development" and Brian Donley's "speciality referral center are quantifiably nominal. The loss of $7M in charitable care is already being felt by the underserved in Lakewood and surrounding communities.

Dan Alaimo wrote: * What price do you put on truth?
* What price do you put on justice?
* What price do you put on a fully functional government responsive to the citizens, now and in the future?

Mr. Alaimo,

I am sure that a level headed gentleman like Mr. Rice might agree with us that the answers to all three of your questions are:
1. * What price do you put on truth? Priceless!
2. * What price do you put on justice?Priceless!
3. * What price do you put on a fully functional government responsive to the citizens, now and in the future?Priceless!

I have spent more than 1/2 of my life on fighting for the first two, but only two years on the third, but I would not sell out any of the three for all of the money in Gods Green$$$ Earth.

My question to Deckers:

What value do you put of the lives of those who have died and will die due to the cutbacks at the hospital and its closure?

I never practiced personal injury law because I don't have the stomach for it and I could never bear taking a check for 1/3 of the value of someone's life as a fee. I do, however, admire those attorneys who are able to achieve monetary justice for real victims.

The Appeals Court judges declined to reconsider, not too surprising as it reflects on the soundness of their own decision.

However, one of the judges, Sean Gallagher, dissented. He felt that there WERE issues worth looking at and he would have preferred that the litigants have their day in court.

Here is his dissent:

Motion by appellant for reconsideration and request for oral argument is denied. Sean C. Gallagher, J., Dissenting: Although I am cognizant of my earlier role in the decision to dismiss this appeal as moot, I feel we should grant reconsideration and allow the parties the opportunity to argue the relevance of Fox v. Lakewood, 39 Ohio St.3d 19, 528 N.E.2d 1254 (1988), and the efffect of the election in 2016 on the merits of this appeal. In a prior order filed on October 27, 2016, I agreed to allow this matter to be referred to the conference attorney program for mediation in light of the pending election scheduloed for November 8, 2016. Subsequently, on December 8, 2016, I dissented from this decision to postpose the mediation and indicated the case should be returned to the appellate panel for a full hearing. Although I concurred with the majority on the decision to dismiss the appeal, I believe there are sufficient questions about the application of Fox to these facts that warrant reconsideration. Therefore, I respectfully dissent. Notice issued.

This dissent is important because it gives the plaintiff a tangible reason to appeal to a higher court. I hope they continue to pursue it.


However, what is super funny is Mr Butt Hurt himself is all over Twitter posting that Matt Markling "loses again," and Sean Koran is a loser. He also brings DL Meckes into it saying "how's your lawsuit going?" And not to be left out, he tweets about Brian Essi.

Now, of course, we learned right here what Free Speech is - Mr Butt Hurt (Uldricks) is allowed to say whatever he'd like about these people. But, it's pretty funny that he's never mentioned that he himself was a BIG LOSER in his recent court case!

The guy reminds me of Trump! Cannot control himself and has no cognizance of his own shortcomings!