We're going to be a much better run and efficient city because of the audit.
That type of process (hiring a master developer) is something we will never consider using in the future.
We expect to meet the expectations of the state auditor (when the follow-up visits occur).
We take the accusations very seriously, especially when they are about some of our own.
The discussion on the audit takes place in the first 10 minutes of the video.
I know of two very qualified developers who presented from KC. With real results. But I guess they did not pay out when the hand was out........
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect, the time to have taken this seriously has come and gone on many occasions for the City Council. Examples:
ReplyDelete1. When the Council knew it had issues with how Rohr was managing the City and refused to make a change because he was advancing the agenda of the special interests and downtown (at the expense of the rest of the community). Thankfully 5 members of the Council finally stood up and did what should have been done years ago.
2. When Rohr was allowed to be the sole contact for the City in negotiating the WB deal and did not permit the involvement of the City Attorney or other managers who should have been involved. This would have been a huge red flag in any other company or organization.
3. When the everyone knew that the Chamber was allowed to have too much involvement in the City's operations and was not being held accountable for performing.
4. When the Lorraine investigation was completed and many of the same issues were brought forth.
5. When WB continually failed to meet deadlines or performance benchmarks.
The list goes on and on and on.....
For Mayor Seibert to say that the City takes the audit seriously is a slap in the face of the citizens...I think most of us know that the new City Manager and his Team will take the audit seriously. What most of us don't believe is that the City Council will. You had your chance (on multiple occasions) and failed miserably.
No sense of personal failure in this guy.
ReplyDeleteFor Mayor Seibert to say that the City takes the audit seriously is a slap in the face of the citizens...
ReplyDeleteWHEN IT IS NO LONGER PLAUSIBLY DENIABLE, THE HORSE HAVING LEFT THE BARN (ALONG WITH WALLACE, BAJJALI, ROHR ET AL) THE STATE AUDITOR HAVING PRESENTED THE EVIDENCE, OF COURSE THEY TAKE IT "VERY SERIOUSLY". THERE REALLY ISN'T ANYTHING ELSE THEY CAN SAY.]
WHAT'S NEXT? A PROMISE OF "SWIFT ACTION"?
ALL THESE FOLKS HAVE TICKS AND FLEAS FROM LAYING DOWN WITH THEIR DOGS ALL THESE YEARS.
WHO COULD HAVE KNOWN IT WOULD TURN OUT LIKE THIS BACK WHEN 5000 PEOPLE SIGNED THE AUDIT PETITION?
For all the mess with Wallace-Bajjali, 5:01 PM's point #2 is key:
ReplyDelete2. When Rohr was allowed to be the sole contact for the City in negotiating the WB deal and did not permit the involvement of the City Attorney or other managers who should have been involved. This would have been a huge red flag in any other company or organization.
And one question: who knew besides Rohr and the City Attorney that Rohr, not a disinterested lawyer, was the only person in theory looking out for the city's interests?
Because the not including penalties for Wallace-Bajjali failures and inaction (they never even submitted a master plan!), and the extreme penalties for Joplin canceling their contract, $5 million in the first year, $4 million in the next, etc. rest on the head of "stake my reputation" Rohr.
Did the city councilors, even those like Siebert who were a part of wiring the bid to Wallace-Bajjali (his mother was an Eastmoreland elementary school teacher, right? I wish he was a fraction as strict as she was), know the contract was that one sided? And that the City Attorney had been shut out by Rohr? With Rohr controlling so much, did the City Attorney even mention it, when it would have cost him his job? (Still, it was his duty as a professional lawyer to make that clear, and to render an opinion on the contract to the council.)
So following from that, not only would canceling the Wallace-Bajjali contract cause a major loss of face, it would have been compounded by the city paying an outsized penalty. So:
4. When the Lorraine investigation was completed and many of the same issues were brought forth.
When Lorraine said to pay the penalty, it'll be cheaper in the long run, he was ignored. Wasn't everything he said ignored by a majority of the city council, except "get rid of Rohr"? Who's position was made untenable by the report.
They're only getting rid of Woolston now that this audit has made his position untenable.
5. When WB continually failed to meet deadlines or performance benchmarks.
See above, especially since by design there weren't hard deadlines or performance benchmarks with teeth in the contract.
I will offer an opinion as to why the City Council allowed Rohr to be the sole contact and negotiator for the City on the WB deal.....By definition, the City Council only has only three employees that they directly manage and supervise. These are the City Manager, City Attorney, and the City Clerk. By excluding all other City employees, except for the City Manager, they created a "plausible deniability" buffer zone between them and WB and in turn eliminated those from the chain of communication who had a responsibility and obligation to communicate their concerns and "professional opinions" on the deal to the Council and the public. For anyone to believe that there was not purposeful intent on behalf of the City Council in allowing only Rohr to manage the deal is seriously misguided and/or mistaken.
ReplyDeleteRohr pretty much said in his own statement that officials and the financial advisor (Deloitte) were kept out of the discussions because he didn't like what they were saying. The man has an ego bigger than the state he's now working in.
ReplyDelete