Visit this Link: “Proposed 2011-2012 City Budget: Piercing the veil of the City Attorney”
The “closed session” vote Tuesday – to pursue litigation against the Department of Finance over the proceeds of bonds issued by the dissolved Redevelopment Agency – was “totally improper.” Improper because there is NO statutory required for a vote like this to be done behind closed doors — in secrecy — to avoid the scrutiny and input from the public.
“Closes sessions” are namely for when a city is being sued and their settlement agreements — by mutual consent — are held confidential. To wit, no individual was suing the city; no business entity was suing the city, the city is not suing a public or private individual or a business or corporation; there was no personnel evaluation, no termination or hiring involved.
The peoples business needs to be done in the open (unless a statutory requirement is in place and there was none). Yet the city council chose to work behind a smoked-filled back room old-style Chicago politics.
Especially Jim Harris: Remember when Harris was running for city councilman after his appointed term expired? His campaign slogan was: “I will represent all of the people. Harris, sir, you are full of it. You certainly failed to represented any of the people Tuesday.
Jay Corbin, Jim Harris, Joel Clink, and Dan Mintz are are all gutless sneaks. Hiding behind the guise of a unnecessary and improper “closed session”
Note Councilwoman Cora Heiser could not be reached by phone (about four hours ago). I left a message but there was no call-back at the time this story was posted .The vote was unanimous to pursue meaningless litigation.
Frankly, I don’t understand why Cora went along with this facade since she ran on a great platform of openness, sunshine and transparency.
Quite the opposite took place Tuesday. Cora was to be the watchdog for all the people. What happen?
Mintz, by the way, told me a big fat story this summer after I wrote he had a ethical conflict of interest (as opposed to a legal conflict) because his business(es) are in very close proximity to Project Phoenix.
This summer Dan Mintz called me and informed that
he lived his Bowladium businesses are “one mile from Project Phoenix.” That was a boldface untruth. The mileage from his three businesses is less 3/10 tens of a mile and it is only 3 1/2 blocks away (not to mention his real property close by).
Hence he absolutely would materially benefit from a Project Phoenix. That was my point.
Dan Mintz knew or should have known better. But I believed him. He told me a big fat story. Goggle it and count the blocks. I physically drove it, counted the blocks, and checked my odometer.
Lets be very clear here: This law suit is an exercise in futility; it does little but for spoon-feeding legal counsel/Rutan & Tucker tons of money. It’s also an attempting to salvage the Gary Damn-Yo Hi-Tech Duplicate Project Phoenix Playhouse.
It also is an attempt to salvage the city manager’s (and his buddy, Munoz) reputations. Now they are going to sue. That could take years and hundreds of thousand of dollars of sweat and blood on the backs of taxpayers.
Note it was *Bad Legal Advice Attorney, A. Patrick Munoz, who advised the council to take out the debt bond even after the state told them there was NO executed enforceable contract in place to justify it. Now taxpayers are on the hook — for the next 30 years, spanning three generations, in the amount of over $31, 000, 000. And much more in past, present and future legal fees.
What is a legally binding contract?: It’s an Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, named Contracting Parties with the Terms and Conditions clearly set out. There was none of this. An implied covenant is not the same as an enforceable legally binding contract.
Be sure… there is much more at work here.
The League of California Cities, outside interests like Rutan and Tucker (did I mention they are in the bond business), and the city manager. Btw Richard (Dick) Warne’s FPPC Financial Report is all blank but for an
association an organization he belongs to. If you goto their homepage and snoop around Warne is/was a Warne revolving Board member. This organization also deals with bonds.
And all of these numbskull, money-milkers belong to many of the same outside associations. The city council is buying into it for their own self-serving reasons: they want their Gary Damn-Yo Playhouse.
Last week I checked the Staff Reports and the CAFR there was a $200,000 and $60,000, respectively, amount of attorney fees racked up by Munoz and Rutan & Tucker. This is but for only a portion of legal fees accumulated thus far, not including other legal fees.
29‘s legal council in my opinion is a shyster. If he sues in federal court attorney fees will double and it will take forever to litigate. The end result, all for naught. Count of it.
How many more insults can the residents, voters and those in the sphere of influence bear from this sneaky and underhanded city council of abject cowards?
It didn’t have to come out this way.
* Footnote: I can call Munoz a “Bad Advise Attorney* because truth is an absolute defense to libel; I can call him a shyster because that is my opinion based upon his record as I interpret it.
Opinion & Commentary
Incoming search terms:
- 2 boys fighting