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.