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.

The Notes of Summer in Cooper City

The past couple of weeks have been fairly quiet, kind of like a hiatus (oops, the pun is bad, I know). A couple of items may be of interest to those who try to follow the events of the Cooper City governmental folks.Good WishesWe all wish Susan Bernard the very best. Continues service to the city and in turn to the citizens of Cooper City should not go unheralded. Thank you for your many, many years of service to the city.

Humor

On the humorous side of things or tragic side depending on your viewpoint, the late breaking of last Friday that Mr. Elliot Kleiman has filed as a candidate to run for the office of Commissioner, CBWMD, against none other than Chris Fardelmann’s seat, I wonder if this is an attempt by Mr. Kleiman of self embarrassment or just a need to seek some sort of redemption of character. Only time can really tell. My guess is that the voters will probably not seek to place him in any position where once again he might shed some negative publicity on Cooper City.

The New Vice Mayor

Some comments on the new Vice Mayor. Oh, you didn’t know we had a Vice Mayor. Well, It seems that the newly hired or is it temporarily hired city attorney Dave Wolpin, Esq. has taken over directing activities of some of the city personnel and placed himself in the role of leader of the commission by actions not described by the city charter. Actions which replace the authority placed only in the elected officials by the city charter. I guess when you are a friend of the Mayor for a period said to be 18 years and are a neighbor of another commissioner, you get to take a few liberties.

Post Office

It seems there is a postal regulation that no postal facility can be built with USPS funds unless the property is owned by the USPS. Property can be leased if sufficient need exists. Maybe the city is going into the commercial leasing business.

Luncheon Caution

It appears to the casual observer that if you are invited out to lunch with Commissioner Neal De Jesus you will be departing the city payroll much sooner than you may have planned. We will admitted that this is only a rumor but forewarned is better than no warning at all. Brown bagging is not a bad idea either.
BTW
Those who have something that they wish to share may email us at Coopercityinsider@gmail.com. If the folks at the 'Rock Creek cabal' wish to be included on the E-Blast List to receive special emails please write to us at the above address.

A comment that deserves reading by all

ED. Below is a comment we received that we thought everyone should read.

SimplySherry said...
I spent a lot of time on the phone yesterday answering questions about why I'm not supporting Debby Eisinger or Jamie Curran. I went through each point with the person, many of which have been posted on blogs and those that I spoke about at the Commission Meeting Tuesday night. And, although the other person conceded that the Mayor, especially, has exhibited some very questionable ethical behavior, she is still going to vote for her because she has a lot of "experience." I then later found out that this same person who I'd spent over an hour on the phone with was going around questioning whether or not I may have been the person who put the swastika on Lori Green's car. Do I believe that the Mayor put the person up to call me and question me? Absolutely! Do I believe that the Mayor put her up to asking people whether or not I had committed a crime? Absolutely! The most telling part of our conversation was when the other person pleaded with me to think about the position I was taking by speaking out and warning me that I "didn't want to be embarrassed" in the community after the election was finished. I responded by telling her that I sleep just fine at night, that I have a clear conscience, and that I believe strongly in standing up for what I believe in. I see a growing trend in our society of looking the other way, of blurring the lines of ethical and unethical behavior, of giving a free pass to certain individuals because of their "experience." This is a frightening trend, folks, and does not bode very well for us as a civilized nation. I will not stop speaking about what I believe is important. I will not be bullied into backing down from my position. I will not be threatened into silence.
Sherry Ibbs
January 25, 2008 9:04 AM