Blogger and frequent Joplin Globe guest columnist Anson Burlingame offered the following response to the Turner Report post on accusations made against Joplin City Councilman Mike Woolston in the Loraine investigation.
OK, I will waste my time rebutting this blog, for what it is worth.
First of all, I was on the fence in terms of Woolston's reelection for a while. I read the released Lorraine report and then the "missing pages" as well. Bottom line I saw no substantial evidence, evidence needed in a court case to show unethical or illegal behavior in Woolston's conduct.
Any idiot dealing in real estate could read the CART advice, look at a map showing the zone of destruction and make reasonable assumptions about what might be rebuilt and where. It took NO "insider knowledge" to make such decisions, decisions that could be "risky" from an investment standpoint.
There was zero evidence shown by Lorraine that Woolston in fact used "insider knowledge" from his job on council or contact with city staff as a council member to gain such information. It was all shown as concern by a few property owners about what Woolston might have been up to. Any proof that would stand up in court? None that I saw, and still don't see.
Then the voters spoke, with authority is seems to me. Now Turner blames uninformed voters for making the judgment made, in the voting booths. As well he blames the Globe for lack of making information available. Well I had all the information I needed and voted accordingly and with no help from the Joplin Progress Committee, either.
If you believe Woolston acted illegally or even unethically well the voters disagreed with you. Now your only option is a court of law or the Missouri Ethical Commission I suppose.
Oh, I failed to mention that even the Lorraine report showed Woolston seeking and receiving legal advice, informing council of what he was doing and why he was doing it, followed that legal advice and believed, then and now, that he acted within the law and any ethical requirements placed on him.
I like it when voters decide such matters, which they did in this case. But if you still disagree then put your money where your mouth is and take it to another court. You sure as hell cannot sue voters however.
Anson Burlingame
Oh, well, if Anson said it, it must be true.
ReplyDeleteBwahahahaha! I amuse myself...
Well Randy,
ReplyDeleteA comment is now posted as a separate posting on your blog. Interesting but not necessary as far as I am concerned. But do as you like, for sure.
What I find interesting however is you lack of personal response to me. So far you have not even tried to rebutt what I wrote. Will more be revealed, I wonder?
Let me reemphacize my point. A realtor knocking on doors to attempt to buy or sell real estate is not illegal or unethical as far as I know. But if he has insider knowledge of future government actions, well that is a different matter, like insider trading for stocks. Hard to prove in court, but it is against the law.
So far, some homeowners show concern and their concerns might be reasonable. But you and others must go a lot farther to make a real case for insider trading.
The voters heard the accusations and declined to remove Woolston from office as well. I agree with the majority voting, that your accusations still ring questionable, if not false.
Anson
Perhap Anson can explain why Woolston abstained from voting one the 19 properties because he "had a financial interest" regarding them. He says he took no commission on these sales but abstained for that very reason. Is there profit under the table, promised money or consideration at a later date?? I have never seen a realtor waive 19 commissions in my life, and challenge you to name one. It is truly a sad state when an electorate is so ill-informed by the newspaper of record. Loraine recommended the Missouri Ethics Commission be notified of the shenanigans involving Woolston, Wallace, and Kuehn. I hope one of the five on the council has done so, and that an investigation is underway. I have no doubt this would have been resolved earlier when Wooloston and Rohr decided to pull $60k out of relief funds for the Travis Tritt concert. Had not the citizens complained on Tritt's website and Tritt refused to accept the funds, then they would have been busted at that time. Jane Cage, the self-appointed decider has no business telling affected residents what is in the best interest of the city for their property. Affected residents had no input into dreams because they were struggling to rebuild and recover. Opinions are just like ansons, everybody has one.
ReplyDeleteAnson,
ReplyDeleteWe did NOT hear all of the accusations. I voted no because I want all those incumbents out. Very sad that he's still there.
ReplyDeleteThe developer for the Hope Valley project that the Council is approving for a new TIF district is Kevin Steele, who works with Woolston at New Horizons Realty, which Woolston established within the last two years after many years at Pro 100. Woolston is the broker for Steele's license. There has been no public reporting of their relationship.