Joplin City Council members probably will not appreciate the irony, but they have been behind closed doors for nearly four and a half hours as this is being written- reviewing a report that was ordered to bring the truth about two city councilmen into the open.
Investigator Tom Loraine's report, commissioned by the City Council in November, was designed to uncover the truth about Mayor Pro Tem Bill Scearce's connection with a convicted gambler who was a tenant of his at one point, and whether City Councilman and former Mayor Mike Woolston, a real estate broker, bought land in the tornado-damaged area of the city knowing he could resell it to Wallace-Bajjali, the city's master developers, and make a tidy profit.
What reason was used to justify the closed session I do not know- the agenda for the meeting is not posted at the city website- but it can't be personnel. Elected officials do not fall under that category.
The council authorized paying Loraine, an Osage Beach lawyer, $45,000 for the investigation.
Now the first thing that has been done is to take the investigation behind closed doors and make us wonder just what, if anything, could be a good enough reason to keep Joplin residents from knowing whether they have two crooks, or one, or maybe none, sitting on the City Council.
Taking this investigation out of sight of the public, even for one minute, was not a wise decision on the part of the city council no matter what information was included in the report.
If the council members legally went behind closed doors, and it is most likely either they did or the city attorney told them they did, it was an unwise move. They should always remember that the Sunshine Law never states that you have to meet behind closed doors in certain situations. It says you "may."
In this post-tornado era, in which we have seen millions of dollars coming into the city of Joplin, it is more important than ever that our leaders conduct city business in full view of the public.
Our elected officials should take the lead.
They certainly blew it tonight.
Since you proudly boast to be the Joplin area's end all, be all of media coverage, always right, never wrong, unbiased without an agenda, why are you not down there yourself ready to ask questions when they walk out? You think the other mediums are waiting this long? You could have the scoop of all scoops.
ReplyDeleteDon't you just love it when the Joplin Globe comments?
ReplyDeleteI don't recall Mr. Turner ever proudly boasting that he was better than anyone else and that he was never wrong. He does seem to get more than his share of the scoops and he is just one person.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that the report had a number of surprises in it, and not just for the two council members who were targeted for investigation.
ReplyDeleteStill yet, why is he not down there asking the questions? It's easy for him to call them out on this forum but not in person? Go down there, find out, I would like to know too and I'm not in the media, just another taxpayer. He asks us to donate to the cause but won't make the effort to go down and ask questions himself? Easy to be the man behind the green curtain, the great and powerful??? What was name?
ReplyDeleteKSN-KODE getting the scoop on you RT. They're posting stuff pretty quick on Facebook. You should be there, this was your moment to shine. You could have had it before all others.
ReplyDeleteRT, did Rohr just get shitcanned, did I see that correctly? Holy cow, I wish you WERE there for sure now, no way the globe is there this late.
ReplyDeleteTypical of the attacks on Turner. You can't argue with what he says, so you attack him. Happens with his school reporting, also. I would guess the same petty, jealous small minded person in both instances. Wasn't it Turner who first exposed the Wallace-Bajjali background? Why yes, yes it was.
ReplyDeleteIt's painful having to deal with being wrong, isn't it? Turner has been giving us the news straight up all along, and the rest are just catching on. If he was spot on about the city, you can bet he is about the school system.
9:01--
ReplyDeleteHateful much?
Wish we "Like" or "dislike" these anonymous comments
ReplyDelete