The Public Face Vs. The Private Face…

      

As many politicians do, Mr. Curran also has the same affliction of misleading the public by adopting a public face of one person and in private outside of the public eye another.

Recently a report came to the Insider detailing the private face Mr. Curran does not want you know about. The report is as follows. When purchasing another  home in the same complex the home was offered on an “AS IS’ basis. He had an inspection performed. The report was approved and the purchased was completed. A couple of months later a problem was discovered in the upstairs a/c. Upon finding that the original inspection failed to report on the problem  he chose to demand compensation from the seller despite the purchase contract that clearly stated an “AS IS” basis.

When this contract clause was pointed out to him he refused to honor it and instead  obtained a lawyer who proceeded to send to the seller a series of demand letters with the threat of a lawsuit should the seller refuse to pay  damages of $15k to him.

The seller, a recent widow (about 3 months earlier) with two of her children still residing with her, bereaved over her recent loss and the unexpected need to sell her home in order to deal with the subsequent unexpected expenses was quite distraught.  

The under the pressure of the persistent deluge of demand letters and  the threat  of a lawsuit the widow who was also dealing with a heart condition, gave in and paid Mr. Curran $15k  rather than go to court and deal with the anguish of going to court.

Does this sound like the person that talks about how much he cares for others?

We think not. What say you?

A final twist is that the lawyer Mr. Curran chose demanded his fee of $8K. Therefore, the net to Curran was a mere $7k.  How would you feel regarding Mr. Curran had you been the seller under these conditions?

                        

 

 

 

 

  

"Deception" (Lisa Mallozzi's DRW Article, Part II)

by Skip Klauber, resident & p/t journalist

City residents should consider Ms. Mallozzi's DRW article as an opportunity. An opportunity to see through any smokescreen of rhetorical nonsense and examine the deplorable condition of governance in Cooper City. Even more to the point, it is time for each resident in our community to gauge for themselves just how far away we are from any semblance of good governance. And I am not referring to some unreachable political Utopia.  The citizenry need only reflect upon basic concepts of decent representation provided by responsible local elected officials conscious of their sworn oath of office and fiduciary responsibilities.

The individuals controlling the majority of votes on the Commission, with an able assist by fellow travelers and sycophants, count on you, the residents. They count on you to be far too busy to focus on the activities of part-time, locally elected officials who generally meet only twice a month. In addition, most residents are probably vaguely aware we have a qualified, professional City Manager to really run things, and generally make sure the wheels don't come off the bus.

In the person of Bruce Loucks we indeed have a qualified, professional City Manager. While I may sometimes vehemently disagree with Mr. Loucks' decisions, he is a very competent and well-respected professional. However, counterbalancing Mr. Loucks' competence and qualifications are the local offices of mayor and city commissioner. With only three votes necessary to fire any City Manager who might rub their fur the wrong way, I have a great deal of sympathy for anyone trying to hold down that position.

Back in 2008, the majority of individuals holding the offices of mayor and city commissioner exercised a coup de main. Through a series of events never fully explained, and quite irregular in process, they literally bullied their way into seizing the reins of local power. The elected officials decided that despite a distinct lack of any qualifications, and damn the consequences, they were taking control of "City policy". This decision allowed Commission members to fully develop and put into practice their present "make it up as we go along" political philosophy.  In an unforeseen consequence, taking power to which they were never intended also sounded the death knell for any effective oversight within the City.

In over 26 months of closely observing the City Commission, I've noticed "the truth" has a life expectancy shorter than soldiers assigned to WWII Soviet Penal Battalions. The DRW magazine publication has graciously provided local elected officials the opportunity to publish several articles in each edition. It is with astoundingly poor judgment that some of our elected officials seem intent on using the platform provided by DRW to disseminate propaganda pieces, rather than the local chamber of commerce, or health/safety/welfare type articles for which the space is clearly intended.

Rather than respect and observe the courtesy granted by the DRW publication, it seems several Commission members have discovered a new outlet for their favorite method of communication with the electorate. Commission members can write what they want, and then have their propaganda printed and disseminated to a wide audience. Of course, given that DRW is a publication not intended for political statements, there is no procedure in place whereby readers can raise questions that should be answered. The DRW publication is not in the business of fact-checking and making considered judgments regarding articles submitted by local officials. It offers elected officials a transaction dependent on good faith and trust. (Hmmm. Wasn't there a line in the movie "Animal House" relevant to this trust situation?).

I first noticed misuse of the DRW magazine in an article by Commissioner Jamie Curran in the December, 2013 issue. The article was part of Mr. Curran's efforts to, amongst other things, resuscitate a stalled expenditure of over $6,000,000 for construction of a Soccer Complex and upgrades to existing athletic facilities. The projects were to be funded by the City's taxpayers.

Despite essentially no public disclosures, participation, or input through about 18+ months of private discussion and development, the way seemed clear to force through this enormous project. However, at almost the last possible moment certain problems arose. First, it became impossible to hide that no due diligence had ever been done demonstrating any necessity for the notably large expenditure of taxpayers' dollars. Second, to this observer there looked to be an inability to convince Mayor Ross and City Manager Loucks into setting aside their well-founded concerns. Third, there had been questions raised by Commissioner John Sims that remained very much unanswered.

Commissioner Curran used his December of 2013 DRW article to discuss the projected projects of a park and updating athletic facilities (note, for now the term "Soccer Complex" has been virtually barred from the City's vocabulary). He also focused on alleged public disclosure, as well as public input into the projects. The article was based on a rather sketchy version of local legislative history, but the real problem was Commissioner Curran's use of inaccurate information to bolster a key point.

Although I found Mr. Curran's use of the DRW space for propaganda to be an exercise in poor political acumen, it involved an emotional matter for the Commissioner. He had become very closely associated with building a Soccer Complex, and despite taking zero personal responsibility for there being no due diligence, he was clearly unhappy with the situation. Thus, although the article was premised on at least one fact that was clearly and unequivocally false, I thought it likely Mr. Curran had not intended to lie.

Ms. Mallozzi's recent article suggests the bully pulpit offered by DRW presents certain Commission members with an irresistible opportunity. Though cowardly, the preference of the majoritarians for "no questions asked; no questions answered" communications with the public is a matter of record. It's also quite effective, though misuse of DRW magazine could very well backfire badly on those seeking to use the free printing and dissemination of rank propaganda to beat down, undermine or suppress dissent. Once again, the selfish interests of a few local elected officials may well result in certain unintended consequences.

At this point in examining the Mallozzi article, I want to really focus in on the nuts 'n bolts of bad governance. Therefore, I direct your attention to the Commissioner's ill-judged effort to distort and, certain evidence suggests,  intentionally mislead residents via her reference to and explanation of the "70% threshold" in the 2012 CCO-City Resolution.

Resolutions since at least 2003 have resolved that Optimist-run leagues must be made up of 70% or more City residents. Indeed, Ms. Mallozzi alludes to the 70% threshold being part of the 2012 Resolution. However, seeking to justify an apparent back room deal, Ms. Mallozzi adds that participant numbers from basketball are not included, "since they use non-city facilities". Looking at the history of City-CCO sports and Resolutions, this is an absurd and rather comical contention. However, by examining the several different aspects of exactly how the statement is misleading, residents can look "behind the curtain" and view the absence of ability or imagination, as well as the overall lack of candor prevalent amongst the majority of the Commission.   

The reason basketball numbers are backed-out in determining the 70% threshold is as basic as you can get. If the numbers are included, the 70% threshold cannot be reached. It's that simple, and that's all there is to it. Basketball participation was an element of determining the threshold percentage of residents from sometime as early as the 1980's (note, at one time, in a much smaller program, the threshold number was 90%!) through July of 2012. I have scoured the public records produced by the City, and there is no discussion or reference to a discussion concerning backing-out basketball numbers because of using non-city facilities.

If one chooses to pause for 20 minutes and review the applicable data (e.g., the City budget numbers on overall maintenance costs for athletic facilities, CCO participants by town of residence, etc.), there really isn't any scenario where backing-out the data on participation in CCO-organized basketball makes sense but for "the cold equations". Those being that with the basketball numbers included, it is impossible for a 70% threshold of City participants to be reached.

Of course, because discussions involving negotiation of the 2012 Resolution ranged from secretive to fully private in manner, it is not possible to categorically state that Commissioner Mallozzi was being untruthful. There was an alleged open public meeting on April 12, 2012, that addressed six CCO sports-related matters, with the meeting lasting 1 hr. 45 min. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately?) for Ms. Mallozzi, what is being very unwisely hawked by the City as "official minutes" for that meeting describe 105 minutes of discussion in a mere 17 words. That's right, 17. If 17 words representing an hour and forty five minutes of discussion is not disgraceful enough, Commissioners Curran and Jeff Green have publicly asserted these minutes to be substantially inaccurate. (Yes, I know we have a City Attorney. But...).

All of the other meetings that might have discussed the 70% threshold or otherwise supported Ms. Mallozzi's story were private. Commissioner Curran was there, but there are absolutely no records indicating the basketball story is true, and no minutes from the private meetings exist. It should also be noted that when the 2012 Resolution came before the Commission for consideration and vote, there were no discussions or disclosures of any sort. Even though he had presumably been at the helm while the Resolution was drafted, Commissioner Curran failed to introduce the matter, point out and explain changes, ask if he could answer questions, etc., etc. Nothing anyone might expect of an experienced elected representative and official liaison to the Optimists was done.  Or was it... ?

 

 

 

"Deflection" (Commissioner Lisa Mallozzi's DRW Article)

by Skip Klauber, resident & p/t journalist 

I don't care for the tactics being utilized by Commissioners Jamie Curran, Lisa Mallozzi and Jeff Green. While I can't give a legal analysis, as far as I can tell from observing events and reviewing documents, there is no present issue about the "Optimists owing money". The aforementioned individuals, and their fellow travellers, need to stop trying to undermine the Optimists. Be men, and women, rather than selfish, self-centered, power hungry cowards.

There certainly seems to be an issue of financial and other mismanagement by the City. There are also, apparently, issues of mis-governance related to covering up the City's financial and other mismanagement. But based on everything I've seen, and I forwarded public record requests for everything relevant, I don't believe the Optimists owe the City a single penny. But the Optimists' financial obligations are not what the aforementioned Commissioners, and any possible accommodations for them by the Mayor, are all about.

There are few things more annoying to purveyors of bad governance than dissent. All the potential thinking and answering questions can be so very bothersome. In 2009 our Commission found a way to get around most of that dissent "stuff". The Commission promulgated a rule that terminated the decades-old privilege held by City residents to pose questions to Commission members.

The Commission liked the new gag rule so much it has not only been reaffirmed, it has even been extended to all of the City's so-called advisory boards. In fact, it appears the Commission members are even barred from asking questions of one another! (To his credit, Mayor Greg Ross joined Commissioner John Sims in unsuccessfully seeking to widen public input at Commission meetings). 

Getting rid of a need to answer residents' questions has been a real boon to most Commission members. Other than having to listen to three, or at most six total minutes of a resident's comments, most Commission members have a pretty low-stress position. A Commission member doesn't even have to listen to residents' comments- it's not like an elected official might have to answer questions, or anything potentially challenging. If nothing else, the past few years have shown that truly anyone, of any ability, can be on our City's Commission.

Eliminating nearly all effective dissent is nice, but your average tin-horn Caesar with a soft spot for authoritarian process requires more. They need affirmation. A sure vehicle for such affirmation is reading what others say or write about the utter brilliance of your positions, analysis, or performance. And having the populace as a whole reading of your accomplishments goes hand in hand with the affirmation process. Thus, there are "house organs", "party newspapers", and the like. After a while, some pols of high ego/low intelligence even forget they are just reading political propaganda.

Because city commission in a town of under 50,000 residents is on the smaller potatoes side, local yokel tin-horn Caesars need to settle for less media when it comes to the affirmation/ propaganda process. This leads to my thoughts regarding Commissioner Lisa Mallozzi's recent article in the DRW publication.

The article may be more in the nature of self-affirmation, but it fulfills the sine qua non of our local Commission majoritarians: "No Questions Will Be Answered!"  This is reflected in what I believe to be the "write what you want, and don't worry" philosophy underlying the author's approach.

I don't know who penned the DRW article attributed to Mallozzi. I guess I'd like to think its not someone who defeated the well-qualified David Nall in the 2010 election. But whoever composed the article has a very hostile relationship with the truth.

What is the precise status of the facts in Ms. Mallozzi's article?

(1) The article claims it will let residents know "a few facts". This is true. Ms. Mallozzi's article has a few actual facts;

(2) The 2004 Resolution? Sorry, what Ms. Mallozzi writes is less than accurate. By 2004 the Optimists and City were several decades into a relationship. I believe Ms. Mallozzi's entire discussion on this point shows either a complete lack of knowledge (i.e., "ignorance") regarding the Optimists-City relationship, or is intended to be misleading;

(3) The April 12, 2012 get-together? I'm afraid what Ms. Mallozzi writes scores comfortably below the Mendoza Line for truthfulness. That's not to say everything is inaccurate or misleading, but there is enough here straying far from the truth to give me material for another article, or two.

For the doubters, some examples:

(A) Why did the City (note, CITY, not the Optimists!) "invite" only four Commissioners? Do you think it odd the sole Commission member not invited, Commissioner John Sims, was also the only Commissioner not a member of the Optimists organization?

            (by the way, did Commissioner Mallozzi mention she is a member of the Optimists?)

(B) While the 2012 meeting was indeed held in the Commission's meeting room, it was moved to that room at the time of the 2012 meeting. The 2012 meeting was noticed for the City Manager's office. At 9:00 A.M. On a weekday.

(C) As noted, the notice said the meeting was in the City Manager's office. Does that sound like easy access for the public? If you think so, go try and walk into the City Manager's office tomorrow morning;

(D) About that "notice". In Cooper City, City policy is that open public meetings subject to the Sunshine Laws are noticed to the public in (at least) two places, a cork board in City Hall, and online. The City's online site has this big calendar that has about every meeting possibly of interest to a resident, in quite a bit of detail. Yet, the April 12, 2012 meeting was not on the website. Only on that City Hall bulletin board;

(E) The notice failed to reference two of the items to be discussed on April 12, 2012. The items left off the notice were the most complex matters, as well as those of greatest importance to the public;

(F) Ah, the minutes. Yes, the minutes. Maybe Commissioner Mallozzi should read these minutes at the next Commission meeting. A discussion of five subjects over 1 hr. 45 minutes summarized into: 17 words (note, in fairness to all, one word is hyphenated). That may sound a little, sketchy, but

(G) Those minutes again! Commissioner Mallozzi failed to include in her article that two of her colleagues, Commissioners Curran and Green, insisted at a January 28, 2014 Commission meeting the 2012 "minutes" are inaccurate. Yep, inaccurate.  (And you believe Commissioners Curran and Green, don't you?);

This could go on for quite while, so let's summarize. The article by Commissioner Mallozzi is disrespectful to residents, devoid of integrity, and a stain on Cooper City's reputation. Surely, Commissioner Mallozzi must realize that sooner or later the truth always comes out.

Excellence in Financial Reporting?

Commission meeting Feb. 25
(copy of email to Cooper City, City Manager, Bruce Loucks)

On tonight's Agenda is an item, "Frank DiPaolo will present Finance Director Horacio Montes de Oca with a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting". While I don't know Mr. Montes de Oca, or even know very much about him, the presentation at this time of an award for excellence in "Financial Reporting" seems quite irregular.

During the last Commission meeting, the City Attorney presented his opinion on whether Resolutions create legally binding obligations. That is, whether Resolutions can create obligations in the nature of a contractual relationship. Because the City Attorney confidently advised that Resolutions can bind parties in the nature of an enforceable contractual relationship, I would think considerable questions now exist regarding the the nature of the parameters regarding the CCO-City relationship as set out in the 2003 and 2004 Resolutions. As you are aware, an important part of the 2003 and 2004 Resolutions addressed financial obligations by and between the Optimists and the City.

On the question of any financial obligations to the City from the Optimists, prior to Mr. Wolpin's pronouncement it was my belief the Optimists did not possess anything akin to an enforceable financial obligation in favor of Cooper City. However, I can only look at the problem as a layman, not as an attorney. In attempting to incorporate Mr. Wolpin's analysis into the present realities, I see several problems in a decision to present Mr. Montes de Oca with a "Certificate of Achievement". 

(1) No monies were collected by the City from the Optimists from at least January 1, 2007 through around August of 2012. If the 2003 and 2004 Resolutions represent enforceable agreements, the time period just given would result in unpaid fees aggregating as much as (approx.) $250,000 due to the City;

(2) I have been advised by Mr. Montes de Oca, through you and Ms. Poling, the City is unable to account (i.e., provide information) for the receipt of any fees from the CCO prior to January 1, 2007. I have asked for clarification on this issue, but received none. The bottom line appears to be that precisely when the CCO stopped paying nonresident fees over to the City is an open question. Because when the CCO ceased making payments contemplated under the 2003 and 2004 Resolutions is unknown, the amount of unpaid nonresident fees may be greater than $250,000;

(3)  Despite the existence of the 2003 and 2004 Resolutions, public records indicate no attempt by the City to ever enforce the payments contemplated in the 2003 and 2004 Resolutions. Public Records produced no invoices, demand letters, letters requesting payments, relevant emails, etc. from the City to the Optimists. In addition, Public Records indicate that no special account into which nonresident fees were deposited exists, or existed, even though such an account was contemplated by the 2003 and 2004 Resolutions;

(4) Despite the legal opinion presented by the City Attorney, aside from the Resolutions there is nothing in the Public Records evincing any intent on the part of the City to enforce the obligation of the Optimists to pay to the City all nonresident fees collected from participants in CCO leagues.

I am not entirely sure what to make of the above. Particularly in light of the City Attorney suggesting the possibility the 2003 and 2004 Resolutions could represent an enforceable legal obligation. Setting aside any legal analysis best left to qualified counsel, the facts so far discovered via Public Record Requests suggest financial mismanagement on the part of the City. A deal was worked out with the Optimists for nonresident fees to be paid over to the City. For obvious reasons, this is what one would anticipate happening to the nonresident fees. Does anyone doubt that nonresidents paying the extra money all believed the extra amount would flow to the City to assist in deferring the expense of City taxpayers maintaining facilities for use by nonresidents? For what other purpose would a nonresident fee be imposed?

I have assiduously sought out the reason(s) why and when payment to the City of nonresident fees ceased. No answers have been provided. Until there is a clear explanation by the City regarding nonresident fees does the Commission actually believe a, Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting should be presented to Mr. Montes de Oca? The situation is so bizarre and provocative it adds to my suspicion that in order to deflect attention from any allegations of financial mismanagement, the City is prepared to accuse the Optimists of failing to make payments pursuant to an enforceable legal obligation (i.e., the 2003/2004 Resolutions).

The basic, underlying fact set forth herein about nonresident fees not paid/collected is not in dispute. Frankly, with the open questions associated with what happened, or should have happened regarding the nonresident fees, this Commission presiding over this type of ceremony at this time gives off an odor of possible corruption. Until the outstanding financial questions are truthfully and credibly answered, the planned Certificate of Achievement should be delayed. In my opinion, the provocative nature of the ceremony's timing will otherwise work to frame certain questions about the character, judgment and motivations of yourself, members of the Commission, and the Commission's various fellow travelers.       

 Skip Klauber

Sunshine Law violated? (again?)

Article from the Broward Bulldog reprinted for the resident of Cooper city who may have missed it.  Broward Bulldog Article

Comment from Skip Klauber:



I am glad to see the issue of the City’s misuse and outright perversion of “minutes” under the Sunshine Law has again appeared, this time via the Fourth Estate. Thank G-d for that First Amendment, right?  ......

 

The purpose of the Sunshine Law is to provide the public with certain protections against those covered by the Law. As all of you should be aware, one of the greatest weapons available to guarantee protection of the public in the context of the Sunshine Law is “transparency”. Actions by a governmental body cannot be taken in secrecy, or virtual secrecy. There must be proper notice of meetings and key events. Proper minutes must be recorded and made available to the public. Disclosure and truth are of paramount importance.

There are four members of the present Commission who fail to understand that minutes taken pursuant a policy of purposefully excluding events “embarrassing” to the City do not comply with either the letter or spirit of the Sunshine Law. It makes little difference if you have ten different video feeds of an open public meeting recorded and available via video on demand, if the minutes required by the Sunshine Law are deliberately meant to defeat transparency. How exactly does the “supplement” of a video cure this problem? By allowing anyone with an interest to watch entire Commission meetings, right. Except, if the minutes purposely leave out events, how are you going to know to watch the video to see what occurred regarding that event?

The intended answer to the above is, of course, you won’t know. You will have no reason to watch several hours of video if you do not see in the minutes anything of interest having occurred. And the policy is quite effective in making sure you will not be going through a few hours of video because you know via the minutes something occurred that made, e.g., the Mayor look bad. Nope. That is kept out of the minutes so as to be hush-hush. Actually, pretty close to secret. Its there on the video, but almost nobody knows to look at the video because the event is scrubbed from the minutes.
 
Even a non-lawyer such as myself can read the brief Sunshine Law and understand what is necessary in minutes: Neutrality and Accuracy. The policy in effect in this City ensures that neither is met.
  
The above is so easy to understand that, and let’s be candid, you folks must have a pretty good idea you are acting in derogation of “transparency in governance”. One would have to be an imbecile to miss it. With that in mind, I note:

1) The Commission has never requested a written legal opinion from the Weiss & Serota firm on whether the policy for taking minutes complies with the Sunshine Law. All you have is a sort of oral opinion from David Wolpin, Esq., citing no law, and without the full question even being stated. No responsible fiduciaries would be satisfied by that;
 
2) Because of his conflict of interest, you have never considered having Mr. (Bruce) Loucks employ outside counsel solely for the purpose of providing a written legal opinion, or even simply requesting the written opinion from one of Mr. Wolpin’s Partners;

3) The Commission will never consider requesting an Advisory Opinion from the Attorney General’s Office. And I do not mean this as an obvious “throw-away” point. Both Mayor Ross and Commissioner Mallozzi would appear to have good reason to join with Commissioner Sims and request an Advisory Opinion from the A.G. As an attorney, Mayor Ross’ should have a genuine interest in the bona fides of a City policy that purposefully excludes from minutes notice of information or events embarrassing to the City (i.e., to certain elected officials?). And during 2008, it was Commissioner Mallozzi who was the most forceful advocate against the abbreviation of Commission minutes.

While it may make very good sense that Mayor Ross and Commissioner Mallozzi would seek an Advisory Opinion, they will do nothing. For personal or political reasons they have chosen to adopt a policy quite close to outright censorship, and each properly fears the consequences of the City’s “scrubbing of minutes” policy being scrutinized.

Don’t Be Fooled, Again

(Recieved this in an email and thought others might find it of interest. Ed.)

As many have come to recognize the ‘politricks’ of Mayor Debbie Eisinger do not have any bounds. As a practitioner of the Judy Stern school of nasty and often vile personal attacks Mayor Eisinger and her acolytes Lori, Amy, Diane, and Commissioner Liza Mallozzi have once again resorted to her favorite tactic of attempting to cloak themselves in the garment of religious persecution in order to gain a political advantage.

This election time the mayor and her appointed favorite candidate Gary Laufenberg, don’t be fooled again, he is of stout Germanic origin with a maternal Italian heritage of which he boasts strongly, are raising a flag against their opponent claiming a anti-Semitic bigotry.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The charge stands empty of both of any evidence or any commentary. In Fact, it appears that the truth while unknown to these accusers is just the opposite. Commissioner John Sims, a strong advocate of religious freedoms, he and only he was a strong supporter of the Jewish Chabad of Nova that had to sue Cooper City to win the right to be in Cooper City. The Mayor and her allies on the commission dragged out the suit for over 18 months refusing to settle it for $10,000 dollars. The federal judge finally settled it and awarded the Chabad $800,000.

When word that Commissioner John Sims had been a strong supporter of the Chabad reached others within the community an organization with a proud heritage, the Jewish War Veterans Post 177, determined that John’s military service record and his efforts on behalf of the Chabad of Nova warranted an invitation to join their group. Commissioner Sims gratefully, and I might add, with humility and pride accepted as a patron member.

As might be expected few outside of his group of friends and the members of Post 177 knew of his membership. Well, when the abominable minions of political detractors found that John’s resume contained a line indicating that membership they attacked with a viciousness of bigotry not seen in this area since the days of the KKK, claiming Sims could not be a member as he was not Jewish. (check with the website)

Not only did two of the Cooper City Commissioners, Mallozzi and one unnamed, and a pseudo civic activist named Diane Sori begin a campaign of harassment by calling national headquarters’ of the Jewish War Veterans demanding reprimanding action be taken against this post. This haranguing culminating in threats of demanding the revocation of the post’s charter, notwithstanding the age of these proud veterans.

I can hardly find the words to express my personal disgust and admittedly anger that persons of this community, two of whom purport to be of the Jewish faith would take to committing such a despicable if not vile and demeaning action to members of such a proud organization. Can we as a community of free loving, tolerant and compassionate people allow this to go unmentioned? I think not.

If there exists a group, both men and women, to whom we all owe a deep and profound debt, I can not think of another more deserving of our respect and gratitude. The fact that individuals chose to disparage, demean and castigate a veteran(s) cannot be deemed a simple political tactic. It must be seen for what it is, bigotry of the most despicable vile nature.

Please, stand with me against this type of crass behavior. It is without exception the most reprehensible act I have seen in many a year. It’s now your turn to standup for what we the citizens of Cooper City know to be an essential part of our being.

Condemn these acts by your action and vote on Tuesday Nov. 2, 2010.

Walt Jolliff

See the Jewish War Veterans' letter click on the link below

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B856dApO1AB2NjVhYWQyZjktYzdiYi00ZDgwLTkzOTUtNzA3YTJmZTg4ZTdi&hl=en

Bulletin!

Alert! Alert!

Just received a note from insider source:
ONE
The Tuesday night Commission meeting is being advertised as the Call for Sims to resign. We have been advised that all of the Eisinger supporters will appear and deliver their message as given to them by the Field Marshall Lori Green. It appears that only the propaganda line will be spoken,(the actual details about anti-Semitic remarks will not be available as none have been reported. I wonder how one handles that problem?).
Item being pursued for additional details..
TWO
Look for national media coverage of Debby and her struggle with the truculent and obstreperous Commissioner Sims. National coverage will really tarnish the once illustrious image of Cooper City. Oh Well, what the hell, home pricing was headed to the toilet anyway, why not just flush it for the next five or more years. People will not want to move to this city for some time to come.

The Meeting was cancelled

Yes, the meeting was cancelled. Oh, you didn’t know about the meeting? Well, I guess you aren’t on the Mayor preferred ‘A’ List of supporters or a very influential persons in Cooper City. You say what meeting? The meeting of the religious leaders of the Cooper City Community. Yes, The Mayor has taken it upon herself to be the Judge, Jury, Priest, and Rabbi. Her continuing effort to discredit Commissioner Sims in the eyes of the community even though he was elected fairly and squarely by the voting citizens of Cooper City. While the democratic process did not meet with her expectation and as she said at the swearing-in ceremony last month, if you are not of the optimist club, (like in John Valenti,) then you must be of a lesser hominoid level, or words to that effect, I am not totally sure as I was vomiting in the restroom.
It is almost unbelievable but the Mayor of this small suburban bedroom community decided since she can not have her way on the selection of the new city manager, (the city charter says that the vote to appoint a new city manager the vote must be 4 out 5 in concurrence, and Neal had the audacity to present his candidate), then she must destroy another individual to secure her political objectives. Case in point, remember Eliott Klieman?
You see, the recent upset of Commissioner Mallozzi over the despicable manner in which Chris Farrell was dismissed has left such a bad taste in her gut that now she will seek to have a good effective and appropriate search for the right person. It should be obvious to all that the slash and burn approach of that delicate master of political ploys, Commissioner de Jesus, leaves a lot to be desired. It also appears that the employees of the city were equally distraught of the manner if not the ‘battle ax in hand’ severance was most unpleasant if not sickening to many loyal and conscientious city employees. Which brings me to the salient point, the Mayor reached out to the religious leaders of this community asking for a meeting on Saturday night at a religious facility (I used that term so as to not embarrass any specific group) apparently to discuss some sort of religious tribunal yielding a resolution or fiat, or decree to demand the resignation of the sacrificial commissioner, in this case John Sims, as Eliott is gone.
If my history memory is reasonably accurate this sort of behavior occurred in the late 1600’s in Salem Mass., they called them called the Witch Burnings and prior to that in Spain during the Spanish inquisition conducted to purge the country of the heretics.
Well, fellow citizens the leaders of the various groups contacted, exact numbers not readily available, being not only educated but intelligent and decent humane beings saw this for what it really was, A HANGING PARTY. Meeting cancelled.
Not to be left unsatisfied, the Mayor who is not one to give up easily, proceeded to alert the sycophants and dilettantes that the castigation parade must be formed for another performance at the next commission meeting. To those of you who are not up-to-date with this well orchestrated home grown (unique to Cooper City) procedure, it is to parade various citizens who are pre-selected and have them vocalize perceived problems in the tone of tirades, admonishments and otherwise fallacious commentary upon the Commissioner du jus, AKA John Sims. Caution to other Commissioners, Don’t turn your head to far or you will be thrown over the side next.

Closed door meetings are still a staple of Cooper City Government

Last Monday, March 9th, a closed door meeting (what?..there are no closed door meetings in Cooper City according to our mayor!) was attended by the city manager, the assistant city manager, our purchasing agent (whomever that might be), our police chief, one city commissioner, and several representatives of companies vying for the ‘red-light camera’ contract. It was a hastily arranged meeting, proposed the previous Friday afternoon, and set-up for that Monday morning. This meeting was done at the insistence of several residents who expressed great concern how unfair it was that only one ‘red-light’ company, American Traffic Solutions (ATS), was making a presentation of their product. Several residents who were very interested asked to be present at this meeting, only to learn more about the ‘red-light’ camera process itself, but also to monitor the fairness of the playing field between all the vendors. Unfortunately they were NOT allowed to be present, secrets being what they are and all.

Our sources (hey, we’ve got a mole...better watch your step!) tell us that the one commissioner present was very closed minded to all vendors except the one she (whoops, we don’t want to give it away now do we?) had a preference for. Our sources and the other vendors tell us that this commissioner was argumentative and just plain rude to all except ATS, her favored company. Thankfully, at the time this was going on, up in Tallahassee the whole criteria of ‘red-light’ cameras, RLC, their legalities and such, was being drafted into Florida law, so this Cooper City ordinance had to be tabled for the time being.

While we are not weighing in at this time about how we feel about this whole ‘red-light’ camera project, (article being developed) we will tell you that we are absolutely appalled how this process was handled. First, where was the competitive bidding process in all this? Unfortunately and unfairly, it was nowhere to be found. One commissioner took it upon herself (slipped again didn’t we!) to pick the company she wanted, at the exclusion of all other vendors with the same, if not possibly a better product. One commissioner personally decided what is best for Cooper City without the input of her fellow commissioners or much less the public. Hey, remember us, the residents, the ones who will be directly affected by this! The public was not even allowed to hear the presentations by the companies because this was a closed door meeting...public keep out! This is how our city is being run! I guess this says it all.

During the election several candidates ran on platforms of open government, only to be told by the mayor that “closed door meetings do not take place in Cooper City“. Well, we can tell you they do, this being a perfect case in point. ALL, and we mean ALL, significant city contracts should be handled during a competitive bidding process in the OPEN at commission meetings or workshops, where the PUBLIC is allowed to give their input and opinions, and where each company can have their products presented in an open and fair manner. One commissioner should not have the right to choose and push through a company of her own choosing without all interested parties being allowed to present their company’s product. This is a democracy for heaven’s sake, not the personal playground of a selected few.