The Observation Deck

It is time for silent Ryan Nowlin to step into the sunshine and break his silence.

The records below raise questions about:
1. Nowlin's role with Subsidium in 2013 in planning the hospital closure-- (notice the Insiders club copied on the August 13, 2013 email below)
2. Nowlin's family members that may have benefitted from the CCF deal. (notice that Madigan--who had here own conflicts issues with Metro ---raises an issue in her 2013 email about Nowlin's relatives working at the hospital.)
3. Nowlin's conflicts as an attorney and on council related to his law firm's relationship with the City, LHA and LHF. (See the completely redacted 2015 "public record" below)

Nowlin's lawyers are currently claiming in the Ohio Supreme Court that what he and his colleagues hid from the public was "LAID BARE".

But these records show that Nowlin has some explaining to do.

What else is still being hidden?

The insider "knowledge" group grows larger. This is very interesting. Now, you can argue that the majority of city council knew about the funky Subsidium process that led to the inside deal to the close the hospital. Why would this not be the subject of public hearings or public meetings in 2013?

As you post these documents, we can see how private parties can disrupt what should be public governmental process. Fundamentally, this is the problem with privatization. Private parties are able to misuse governmental process to capture public assets and public property.

Mark Kindt wrote:The insider "knowledge" group grows larger. This is very interesting. Now, you can argue that the majority of city council knew about the funky Subsidium process that led to the inside deal to the close the hospital. Why would this not be the subject of public hearings or public meetings in 2013?

As you post these documents, we can see how private parties can disrupt what should be public governmental process. Fundamentally, this is the problem with privatization. Private parties are able to misuse governmental process to capture public assets and public property.

Indeed!

However, I would add that it was our elected officials that intentionally disrupted not only what should have been a governmental process, but also a process that I am arguing to the Courts should now be deemed to have been a public process subject to disclosure of all public records and sunshine laws.

It is problematic that Nowlin and the rest of City Hall continue to deny that what they did, they did as elected public officials and we citizens have a right to full disclosure and accountability---hence, the appropriate titling of Mr. Kindt's excellent separate and thorough threads on the Deck.

Mr. Essi draws a crucial distinction that I have noted elsewhere.

We have witnessed a profound failure of our municipal government to perform its governmental functions in a manner consistent with the rule of law at considerable loss to the health care of our community; in a manner that delivered invaluable, irreplaceable public assets into the hands of private entities; and all at pretty heavy financial loss to the city and its citizens.