Monday, September 14, 2015

Just when did the City Council meet to reach agreement with Woolston?

The Joplin City Council meeting scheduled for 6 p.m. today to hold a censure hearing for Mike Woolston was canceled, of course, after a joint statement was issued from Woolston and the council announcing Woolston's resignation and saying that he had been absolved of all wrongdoing.

Just when did the City Council reach this agreement with the former mayor?

There have been no postings for special city council meetings other than the one scheduled for tonight. No votes were taken during the last council meeting authorizing any kind of agreement, unless it was done during a closed session.

Perhaps it was done through telepathy.

Consider this section from the joint announcement:

Mr. Woolston has agreed to resign from the City Council in order to minimize any further turmoil to the Joplin community.  The parties have agreed on this joint statement to reassure the public that the issues have been addressed fully and fairly.
The parties have determined that Mr. Woolston did not benefit financially on any real estate transactions between the City or the Joplin Redevelopment Corporation and Four State Homes or other sellers, and that Mr. Woolston was not involved in the purchase of properties by the Joplin Redevelopment Corporation.  The parties have further determined that Mr. Woolston did not use inappropriately any non-public information or the prestige of his office to benefit himself or any of his business associates or affiliates.  Mr. Woolston was not and is not involved with the Wallace Bajjali development firm.  Mr. Woolston was not and is not involved as an officer or an owner with the Hope Valley or South Main TIF projects. 
The parties have agreed that Mr. Woolston could have done more to make transparent his relationships with these other business entities and endeavors and that this added transparency might have helped avoid an appearance of conflicts of interest.  Mr. Woolston regrets that these appearances have persisted and apologizes for the perceived lack of transparency.
All of this tends to lend credence to the sources who were telling the Turner Report last week that they expected either another delay or a resignation because Woolston had been advised that anything he said during this meeting could be used if federal or state authorities attempt to bring charges against him at some later date.

16 comments:

  1. Anonymous1:00 PM

    In what meeting did the City Council make these "determinations" of the facts surrounding Woolston's actions?
    Is the Subshine Law optional when they like it?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Steve Holmes1:12 PM

    Yous sources make sense. Without this piece of information, the resignation does not. The second paragraph seems to absolve Woolston of the most serious charges (how the parties agreed that Woolston had not done the deeds is surprising since, as far as I know, he has not been cleared by law-enforcement agencies). If the majority of the Council really felt this way, the worst he would have gotten was a censure that allowed him to stay on Council.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous1:21 PM

    "I did not have sales with that woman." - Mike Woolston

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous1:22 PM

    So he's winning like Charlie Sheen?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous2:06 PM

    Who are these parties?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous2:11 PM

    So who do they appoint to the open seat? Oh, I'm sorry: who did the Joplin Progress Committee tell them to appoint?
    Maybe......Jane Cage???

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous2:13 PM

    I hear CJ Huff is available to take Woolston's place?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous2:20 PM

    He did not resign.....he retired.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous2:24 PM

    First - The "meeting" must have taken place sometime before the library groundbreaking Saturday. He was there but didn't turn a shovel like he other council me,beers.

    Second- Didn't he admit taking a commission on the first property with Khun? If he admitted it, why does it say he took nothing?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Steve Holmes2:33 PM

    1:21

    I believe that sales should only be transacted within the bounds of marriage by a buyer and a seller of opposite genders.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous3:08 PM

    He wants to spend more time with his family and if anyone was paying attention to all you anonymous here you'd think there was some sort of an investigation or scandal.

    Shaking my head and wagging my finger at the hypocrisy.

    It's nothing like Wallace Bajjali.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous6:03 PM

    Another city coverup swept under the rug! I hope the citizens wake up for the next City Council elections and all that voted to accept this so called clean resignation are NOT re-elected!

    ReplyDelete
  13. I request the mediation services of the City Council if I'm ever in trouble. Such a judicial bunch!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous10:04 PM

    I would imagine that council members wanted Woolston to resign, and that the content of this statement was among his demands for such a resignation to occur. This doesn't actually clear Woolston in a legal sense, so the council accepted it. Woolsten gets to wave it around and say "SEE? *These* people didn't find any evidence of wrongdoing" and now he can at least have some rationale for saving face.

    Similar thing with Huff, he was playing hardball with his own resignation and so the conditions of Huff's resignation package were deemed a smaller price to pay than a protracted battle.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous10:23 PM

    That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.

    ReplyDelete