Monday, March 03, 2014

Complete video- Mark Rohr's farewell speech, Joplin City Council meeting

Get Microsoft Silverlight

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

Someone please pass the tissues. No one else understands how cool I am.

Anonymous said...

Where did the video come from? I didn't see a proper credit given.

Randy said...

It comes from the city of Joplin's website.It is an embeddable video of a public meeting. Are you suggesting that I have done something wrong?

Anonymous said...

Defensive much Randy? The poster asked for a simple credit for source, you get bitter when you don't get credit for being the "first to report."

Randy said...

I thought it was a stupid remark.

Anonymous said...

It's your blog, if you think it's a stupid comment, don't post it.
I posted a comment earlier tonight and you've yet to post it.
How does your selection process for what makes it and what doesn't work? Do you have a posted policy or just random whatever you think should or shouldn't.
I understand it's your racetrack, your cars, your rules, but something resembling consistency would do wonders for your integrity and credibility.

Randy said...

I have only omitted one comment and that was one that I do not have the evidence to be comfortable printing. As you are well aware, when Mark Rohr left Piqua, Ohio, he filed a defamation lawsuit against someone who had made the same accusation and Rohr won the lawsuit even though he was not awarded a penny. Who knows? That stuff may come out when we find out about the 10 pages. I have allowed you to mention it in brief a couple of times and hint at it, but I am not going to let you go overboard on it just so you think I am "consistent."

Anonymous said...

OK, thanks for answering with a response that I will say is politely professional, clear and consistent. You need proof? How can I get it to you?

Randy said...

I was hoping you would say that. If you are talking about documentation, you can e-mail scanned material to me at rturner229@hotmail.com. My mailing address is 2306 E. 8th, Apt. G, Joplin, MO.

Anonymous said...

A google search of his address will give you part of what you need.

Anonymous said...

i am outraged by the decision to pay that bill. Joplin is getting screwed by the 5 who obviously have something to hide or something to gain by paying it. they aren't worried about a lawsuit by the investigator/ the contract was cut and dry - get approval over $45k. when do these people come up for reelection?

Anonymous said...

Can't find his home address, what is it? I'll take it from there.

Anonymous said...

I can tell you for certain, that legally, the City Attorney had no right to authorize the expenditure of Tax Payer money. ONLY, the City Council can do that. After seeing the way he dodged that issue, it is clear to me the City Attorney knows this. It's very simple, only the Council can spend money, and you can't do work for a City and then demand payment for work that was not authorized. THIS AIN'T ROCKET SCIENCE, JUST THINK OF THE IMPLICATION, NOW EVERY DEPARTMENT HEAD OR CITY EMPLOYEE CAN PUT SOMEONE TO WORK AND LATER THE CITY HAS TO PAY. THE COUNCIL IS ABSOLUTELY STUPID IF THEY PAY THAT BILL. THEY SHOULD SEEK OUTSIDE LEGAL ADVICE IMMEDIATELY.

Anonymous said...

I can tell you for certain, that legally, the City Attorney had no right to authorize the expenditure of Tax Payer money. ONLY, the City Council can do that. After seeing the way he dodged that issue, it is clear to me the City Attorney knows this. It's very simple, only the Council can spend money, and you can't do work for a City and then demand payment for work that was not authorized. THIS AIN'T ROCKET SCIENCE, JUST THINK OF THE IMPLICATION, NOW EVERY DEPARTMENT HEAD OR CITY EMPLOYEE CAN PUT SOMEONE TO WORK AND LATER THE CITY HAS TO PAY. THE COUNCIL IS ABSOLUTELY STUPID IF THEY PAY THAT BILL. THEY SHOULD SEEK OUTSIDE LEGAL ADVICE IMMEDIATELY.

Anonymous said...

Will Mark use a truck to move to Texas, or just pick up his house in his arms and fly there. I bet he has a red cape with an R on it under his suit. Thank God we had him after the tornado or it would be a waste land with a thunder dome. I'm not guilty and I won't give you the report to prove it. At least in Texas he will be able to find a hat to fit his ego, as long as it's square.

Anonymous said...

Here is what happened. Joplin paid that guy almost $40k to change his investigation from scearce and woolston to rohr. The 5 who voted to pay the excess amount over $45k are shady.

8:56 am I agree. If we have a written contract it wouldn't matter who told Lorraine he could go above the set amount - hearsay isn't going to overrule the written contract.

Anonymous said...

rohr accuses all 51 employees giving testimoney as being liars etc. and says they are just whining because he had to make tough decisions and fire people. He says being in charge is not a popularity contest. So now the tables are turned and his bosses (city council) had to make a tough choice and fire him.

I guess by his own definition rohr is now the whiney city employee.

I think the 5 council knew that their decision would not win a popularity contest but they knew it was the right thing for the city.

rohr should submit his acting performance for a possible academy award and then take his whining to some other suckers.

Anonymous said...

2:43 what in the heck are you smoking? 51 employees? Why do you think it is appropriate for those 5 to spend an extra $40k on this investigation? It isn't their money to spend. We had a contract for $45k. Those 5 people screwed joplin and need to resign ASAP.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @8:56 AM: It doesn't really matter if the City Attorney didn't have the authority as long as the outside investigator in good faith believed he had the authority and depended on that when he exceeded the amount the city council authorized.

As for the money, the Rohr regime has resulted in 3 lawsuits so far, one in progress and two settled. According to our host, one of those resulted in the city paying over a quarter million dollars, so its entirely possible that going forward the investigation was a bargain.

Anonymous said...

Among among all of the grand qualities Mr. Rohr heeps upon all of us and the city, he apparently also knows who will and won't have to pay in the afterlife as punishment for voting against him. I also am tired of hearing the term "half truths" in Mr Rohr describing the report. It seems to me this is a self admission that what is mentioned and portrayed in the report must be at least half true. So, if I am reading this right, Mr. Rohr is ok with he himself running the city on half-truths as long as it's the half he administers to. The other half is not worthy of notice. What a pretentuous, and pompous person he must be.

Anonymous said...

8:39 those 5 people did not initiate the investigation it was the other 4 but I doubt if truth matters to you. the fact that it went over budget is because the 4 were dumb enough to ask for an investigation into the mysterious sticky note and any information surrounding it. Of course you already know this but it is to your benefit to only post half truths, innuendo and bald faced lies.

good luck building your rohr statue because when the report becomes public his fan club will fade away back to the downtown where they all came from.

Anonymous said...

Why is it that everyone has conveniently forgotten that a portion of the investigation was directed at Woolston? He is up for re-election and yet no one is questioning the fact that he is making a profit from what he learns at council meetings. Why is everyone so upset at the investigator's bill, yet no one cares that the city is paying a 99 year lease to the Jennings family at approximately $14,000 a month?