Wednesday, April 29, 2015

No wrongdoing in zoning case but what about emails?

Wendy Hundley asks the question that matters: Why weren't all of the emails turned over that the dmn and wfaa requested?

That is going to be a problem.


  1. She didn't turn them over bc they were incriminating against her.

    What other reason would she have to withhold them?

    Going to Northpark to try out the van service!! Give me freaking break. Headed to Northpark = Dancing Between the Sheets.

    Sad to bring her sons into the conversation - she should have thought about that before bedding her "special friend" while he needed a critical vote

  2. There are three points of coincidence that merit explaining:
    1. Filing Deadline (Feb 27th)
    2. Conflict of Interest Declaration (March 19th)
    3. April Announcement: (April 2nd)
    At each of these points in time there are three questions that must be answered:
    1) Did she not know that what was happening in her own life would have an impact on her role as mayor? (a) divorce, (b) affair, (c) bankruptcy, (d) job offer from real estate developer?
    2) Did she really not discuss any of these particulars (a, b, c, or d) with any other member of the council or city staff? (Really?!)
    3) Did she discuss some or all of these particulars with Mr. (or Mrs.) X (not a council member), who then discussed it with another council member, or all of the council members one-on-one in series? Thus she did not technically discuss anything with another council member, but the result is the same outcome, i.e. the council can plan what to do, and they can help her help them in figuring a way to maintain control of the situation without anyone violating an open meetings statute.
    It seems impossible to believe (without proof) that all of this personal turmoil was going on for four or five months (!) and she did not talk to anyone about it and did not inquire of anyone as to the possible effect it would have on her role as mayor, and that she simply threw this huge stink-bomb into the city councils' lap on April 2nd (via a Facebook post): "Surprise! My personal life is falling apart. F-This! I'm out, bitches!" It stretches credulity past the limit.
    "It's not the crime; it's the cover up." There's no crime and no ethics violation in a, b, c, and d. Life can be messy and we are all just humans. But it is an ethics violation (and possibly a crime) to conspire with others to hide all the facts from the public -- not the facts of the messy personal stuff, but the facts of the impact to the city government -- until you have a ready answer and control of the path to resolution.

  3. In other news, a lawyer recently hired by O. J. Simpson, after a 3 week investigation has cleared Mr. Simpson of all charges and demands his immediate release from prison.

  4. Todd - if it's not a crime for a mayor to have an affair with a developer that's requesting a zoning change, and it's not a crime for her to accept a job with him, what did the other council members have to report?

  5. If she discussed it with City staff, that is not a violation. If she discussed it with only two other Councilmembers, nor did any staff member discuss it with more than two other Councilmembers (daisychaining), then it's also not a violation. If the code of ethics doesn't address it, then it's also not an ethics violation. Doesn't make it right, but also doesn't mean there's anything to punish.

  6. When you leave people to their own devices (with taxpayer money) to develop, approve, rule and investigate any governmental activity, never be surprised with the result.