The Observation Deck

Bridget Conant wrote:Above which has led to this:

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.

Which is where we are today and it didn't have to be this way. A city divided, a city that has lost a valuable asset, a real mess. No one can deny we are in a bad place.

For what??

And this is the problem. The residents of the city have less and less faith in City Hall. The entire City including many council people are wondering, "Why won;t he tell the truth?" Why the falsification in court documents? Why is the only truth coming out about the hospital being leaked out of the lawsuit, and why won;t City Hall turn over hundreds of documents that we have a right to see?

The problem is not the hospital, it is the emerging fascist government, and the inability of our "leaders" to talk openly about the single largest change in Lakewood in 50+ years.

The hospital is the symptom, the cause is Bad Government, and a City Hall out of control, answering to no one.

.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:

Bridget Conant wrote:Above which has led to this:

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.

Which is where we are today and it didn't have to be this way. A city divided, a city that has lost a valuable asset, a real mess. No one can deny we are in a bad place.

For what??

And this is the problem. The residents of the city have less and less faith in City Hall. The entire City including many council people are wondering, "Why won;t he tell the truth?" Why the falsification in court documents? Why is the only truth coming out about the hospital being leaked out of the lawsuit, and why won;t City Hall turn over hundreds of documents that we have a right to see?

The problem is not the hospital, it is the emerging fascist government, and the inability of our "leaders" to talk openly about the single largest change in Lakewood in 50+ years.

The hospital is the symptom, the cause is Bad Government, and a City Hall out of control, answering to no one.

.

VOTE FOR RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT

VOTE AGAINST ISSUE 64

Councilperson Anderson,

Since we are quoting court documents, from Skindell's brief from March of this year: "Prior to the December 7, 2015 Committee of the Whole meeting, City Council
held an impromptu press conference in small locked room guarded by multiple Lakewood police officers. See R. at 71 (citing to the video of the press conference
located at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lChNMhrAXCk; T. 96:5-7 (taking judicial notice of the press conference). The public, outside of few select members
of the news media, was barred from attending this press conference. See R. at 71. All seven City Council members attended the press conference. See R. at 73.

At this press conference, City Council announced that it had reached an agreement with LHA and CCF to close Lakewood Hospital and transfer millions of dollars worth
of public assets to CCF. R. at 72. This agreement is known as the "Master Agreement." See R. at Ex. 1.

During the press conference, prior to any public vote or deliberation on the matter, Council President Madigan proclaimed that she was happy to say that an agreement
has been reached to move forward on providing health care here in Lakewood for generations to come. R. at 74. She further exclaimed that we are here tonight unified to
talk to you about this agreement, R. at 1 75, and that [w]e made decision that we are ready to roll out and share with our constituents. R. 1 at 76."

"made decision that we are ready to roll out and share with our constituents"

Was that decision made by a vote of council while in executive session?
When was the script you mentioned you "went off" created?
Can you explain how that these actions were NOT in violation of Ohio's open meeting laws?

I have stated before that I feel Lakewood City government reached a new low in that December 7th press conference and I cannot for the life of me
figure out how council came to this agreement without violating open meeting laws.

I hope that the court of appeals has more sense and better judgment than Judges John P. O'Donnell and Judge Stuart A. Friedman.

Even after the lawsuit began, Judge John P. O'Donnell still continues to take contributions from alleged friends of Michael P. Summers and those that otherwise have a stake in this deal. For example, $2,500 from Thompson Hine on 8/16/16. $250 form Kenneth J. Laino on 7/7/16. Mr. Laino is a friend of Michael P. Summers and also works at Councilman Ryan P. Nowlin's law firm. Ryan P. Nowlin is a defendant. Not to mention contributions in the past from Joseph P. Gibbons from LHA, Cleveland Building & Construction Trades Council (endorsed 64), the Spellacy Family, and others. I have already telephoned the Ohio Supreme Court - Board of Professional Conduct regarding the questionable activity that Judge John P. O'Donnell appears to be involved in. They seemed very interested and advised me to write a complaint. You can go to the Ohio Supreme Court website for more information.

I'm sure everyone knows about the alleged, racist foreclosure scam that Judge John P. O'Donnell was allegedly involved in a few years ago.

I'm also sure everyone knows all of the individuals that appear to be close to Summers that work in the county's administrative offices and the court system. Darren Toms, Mike Dever, Nora Hurley, Mary Louise Madigan, and the list goes on.

I am willing to give the case a chance to go through the appeals court and see what happens.

In the meantime, say no to what appears to be an attempted takeover by what appears to be an out-of-control, authoritarian mayor and about 100 of his friends. Just vote against 64.

Kate McCarthy wrote:Councilperson Anderson,

Since we are quoting court documents, from Skindell's brief from March of this year: "Prior to the December 7, 2015 Committee of the Whole meeting, City Council
held an impromptu press conference in small locked room guarded by multiple Lakewood police officers. See R. at 71 (citing to the video of the press conference
located at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lChNMhrAXCk; T. 96:5-7 (taking judicial notice of the press conference). The public, outside of few select members
of the news media, was barred from attending this press conference. See R. at 71. All seven City Council members attended the press conference. See R. at 73.

At this press conference, City Council announced that it had reached an agreement with LHA and CCF to close Lakewood Hospital and transfer millions of dollars worth
of public assets to CCF. R. at 72. This agreement is known as the "Master Agreement." See R. at Ex. 1.

During the press conference, prior to any public vote or deliberation on the matter, Council President Madigan proclaimed that she was happy to say that an agreement
has been reached to move forward on providing health care here in Lakewood for generations to come. R. at 74. She further exclaimed that we are here tonight unified to
talk to you about this agreement, R. at 1 75, and that [w]e made decision that we are ready to roll out and share with our constituents. R. 1 at 76."

"made decision that we are ready to roll out and share with our constituents"

Was that decision made by a vote of council while in executive session?
When was the script you mentioned you "went off" created?
Can you explain how that these actions were NOT in violation of Ohio's open meeting laws?

I have stated before that I feel Lakewood City government reached a new low in that December 7th press conference and I cannot for the life of me
figure out how council came to this agreement without violating open meeting laws.

Councilperson Anderson,

You raised this issue and have yet to address many of the questions around this issue. I think more highly of you that you would post the trial judge's opinion and not address the appeal to which you are also a party to. If you cannot because of the recommendation of lawyers fine, but to make try to appear that this is a done deal is terribly disingenuous. Please answer the questions raised, and if you cannot, state why.

I asked two simple, straightforward questions. The third might not be so easy to answer. You created this thread. Please own it.

Kate McCarty -

Your questions are fair. Council cannot vote in executive session. Obviously, we discussed the deal before us but did not vote because we can not vote in executive session. Council voted to authorize the city to enter into new contracts after the third reading of the legislation (the very evening after Judge Friedman's ruling).

My "off script" comment was a personal characterization of what I knew was is my remarks compared to what my colleagues stated before me that evening as well as the month prior. I was not handed a script and was not asked for my written comments in advance. It was an off the cuff comment and I can see why you interpreted it the way you did.

I personally asked and was briefed by Council's Thompson Hine legal team that the press conference was appropriate and not in any way a violation of any open meetings law.

Skindell's lawsuit sought to prevent Council from voting. Judge Friedman ruled and Council voted after the third reading. The very thing the lawsuit attempted to prevent took place 11 months ago.

I apologize for the delay in my response.

David Anderson

The very thing the lawsuit attempted to prevent took place 11 months ago.

Yes, it took place. Whether it was legal or not has not been decided. That's why it's still in litigation.

Brian Essi wrote:Thank you for your cutting and pasting the Court decision that was made without you and 4 other Defendants present in Court. As you may be aware, Plaintiff's counsel asked that you and others be present to testify, but you failed to appear at the hearing.

I understand that case is on appeal and recently the subject of a mediation--I hope that you and all of the Defendants appear at the Court ordered mediation.

How do you mediate a violation of open records laws?

Either the law was violated or it was not violated; it's not like splitting the difference over a disagreement in a contract cost.

What would a successful mediation look like?

David Anderson wrote: Council cannot vote in executive session. Obviously, we discussed the deal before us but did not vote because we can not vote in executive session.
....
I personally asked and was briefed by Council's Thompson Hine legal team that the press conference was appropriate and not in any way a violation of any open meetings law.
.....
Skindell's lawsuit sought to prevent Council from voting. Judge Friedman ruled and Council voted after the third reading. The very thing the lawsuit attempted to prevent took place 11 months ago.

Councilperson Anderson,

Thank you for your response.

First, the press conference on December 7 indicated that council reached an agreement. I still don't understand how one reaches a unanimous agreement without voting. Perhaps it wasn't a formal vote, but you somehow understood that you all agreed on how to proceed and this was done in executive session. To me that is a violation of open meeting laws.

Second, I personally would not have needed to ask a lawyer if the press conference was appropriate. It was not. To hide from one's constituents in a locked room guarded by police to make an announcement put "messaging" first, governing second. This has been a huge problem with Lakewood city government since this whole mess was started by Mayor Summers.

Lastly, Senator Skindell's complaint had five counts, you only mentioned one. I continue to find it troubling that you and others in city government share information in bits and pieces, in an attempt, in my opinion, to hide the larger truth. To characterize Senator Skindell's complaint as simply trying to prevent a vote of council is simply wrong. I assume you read the original complaint. If that is not the case, please do.

Kate McCarthy wrote:

David Anderson wrote: Council cannot vote in executive session. Obviously, we discussed the deal before us but did not vote because we can not vote in executive session.
....
I personally asked and was briefed by Council's Thompson Hine legal team that the press conference was appropriate and not in any way a violation of any open meetings law.
.....
Skindell's lawsuit sought to prevent Council from voting. Judge Friedman ruled and Council voted after the third reading. The very thing the lawsuit attempted to prevent took place 11 months ago.

Councilperson Anderson,

Thank you for your response.

First, the press conference on December 7 indicated that council reached an agreement. I still don't understand how one reaches a unanimous agreement without voting. Perhaps it wasn't a formal vote, but you somehow understood that you all agreed on how to proceed and this was done in executive session. To me that is a violation of open meeting laws.

Second, I personally would not have needed to ask a lawyer if the press conference was appropriate. It was not. To hide from one's constituents in a locked room guarded by police to make an announcement put "messaging" first, governing second. This has been a huge problem with Lakewood city government since this whole mess was started by Mayor Summers.

Lastly, Senator Skindell's complaint had five counts, you only mentioned one. I continue to find it troubling that you and others in city government share information in bits and pieces, in an attempt, in my opinion, to hide the larger truth. To characterize Senator Skindell's complaint as simply trying to prevent a vote of council is simply wrong. I assume you read the original complaint. If that is not the case, please do.

Ah! The Melancholy Lakewoodite.
Attempting to elude " the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune"
Bump.