State Controller: Pleasant Hill Paid $465,209 for City Attorney in 2012 – Second Highest Paid City Position in CA

December 26, 2013 · 66 comments

pleasant_hill

pleasant_hill_2

The City of Pleasant Hill paid $465,209 for the position of City Attorney in 2012, making the position the second highest paid city position in the state that year, according to State Controller John Chiang.

Former City Attorney Deborah Margolis made about $300,000 a year before she suddenly left the city in July of 2012. After Margolis exited, current City Attorney Janet Coleson took over. Coleson works for the firm of Richards, Watson & Gershon. They were hired by the city to perform legal services after Margolis resigned, and they’re compensated at a rate of $225-$295 an hour.

The population of Pleasant Hill is 33,152.

View more information on the State Controllers website by clicking HERE.

1 Dorothy December 26, 2013 at 2:44 PM

Pleasant Hill on the way of becoming another Bell?

2 No Worries December 26, 2013 at 2:54 PM

Why should they care, it’s not their money and besides you have more.

3 Vladimir December 26, 2013 at 2:54 PM

$14 for each?

4 Claytist December 26, 2013 at 2:57 PM

All that we can ask from city employees is that they be effective in their job, pay attention to detail, and work hard for the interests of the city. Just as if they were in the private sector. In the case of Ms. Margolis, was she any good? Anybodt know her record?

5 Stacy December 26, 2013 at 3:00 PM

At least she has an advanced degree… the fire captain makes over $300K!

6 NoMoreFreeRide December 26, 2013 at 3:04 PM

Another reason why all our cities are broke or on their way to being broke!

7 seepsee December 26, 2013 at 3:24 PM

yeah that’s cool but how dare those bart workers make so much and how dare they even have the right to strike right.

8 Rob December 26, 2013 at 3:46 PM

I can see a city like Los Angeles paying that type of money for a City Attorney with their population size, infrastructure, range of businesses, etc… but Pleasant Hill?!?

9 M.S.G. December 26, 2013 at 3:49 PM

This is what happens when nobody is watching its always after the fact!
Let the people know before.
Its obvious you (Politicians) are not capable of making any educated decisions.
Its the peoples money.
Ask first!
Don’t forget you are employees!

10 Matt Carrera December 26, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Something fishy is happening in Pleasant Hill, CA. First the whole mayor scandal now this. Someone needs to look into this.

11 Crickets December 26, 2013 at 4:51 PM

So all 33,152 people of Pleasant Hill, those they elected to represent them and a city “manager” all, must have, thought it was a good deal, yes ?

12 . December 26, 2013 at 4:54 PM

“Don’t forget you are employees!”
An what happens sometimes with unsupervised employees and children?

13 Elwood December 26, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Who knows what, and when did they know it?

14 anon December 26, 2013 at 5:04 PM

The base pay is 130K. I would suspect there is a termination clause in her contract and the city had to pay out the 327K.

This is why some data from the state doesn’t mean jack. It depends on what box you put it in.

15 Ray December 26, 2013 at 5:15 PM

The same website has Pleasant Hill as the 9th highest average salaried employees in the state, at $85,157. Geez, at one time the govt. workers used to work for the taxpayer, but now the taxpayer works for the government employee.

16 Dorothy Englund December 26, 2013 at 5:19 PM

The 2012 compensation reflects the very generous severance package the City Attorney received when she left. However, if her resignation was truly “voluntarily,” it does seem odd that she received anything more than her accumulated vacation or sick leave and the other deferred compensation owed to her.

I am concerned the new attorney may cost the City even more in the long run.

17 Johnny Bones December 26, 2013 at 5:36 PM

It’s what the employees were saying all along. The City of Pleasant Hill top managers make more than any if their counterparts and the employees are the lowest paid. This is no secret. Why is everyone surprised now? The City has done a terrific job of managing money and not falling into the financial trap all other cities fell into. And the top managers were rewarded while the employee were damned in public for wanting raises they had not received for at least six years prior. This past year the city manager rewarded herself with an assistant City Manager whose salary alone is $150,000. There’s so much more to this story.

18 funny man December 26, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Better call saul!

19 Julio December 26, 2013 at 6:33 PM

I have to agree…don’t let this end here. A real investigation is needed. It smells.

20 Insider December 26, 2013 at 6:41 PM

Coleson is not a PH employee per se. She is technically a consultant/contractor working for PH but is an employee of Richards, Watson & Gershon and the hourly rate is the firm’s salary, overhead, administrative costs, + profit. Legal firms’ billable hours are based on six-minute increments for any time spent on City business.

If there is any outrage about the cost, it should be directed to the City Council and City Manager since they decide whether to hire an in-house attorney or contract out for legal services. They’ve decided on the latter.

And now you know.

21 Are they Inept, or sneaky December 26, 2013 at 6:52 PM

Thank you, Claycord. @ Johnny Bones: yes, and what IS the rest of the story? I’d really love to know. We naive Pleasant Hillians have held the council and staff in such high regard (if we are even aware of them at all…) that we must assume they are doing the best for us up there on the dais. Yes, they can be kind of smarmy, but….
I really wish we had an established group of citizens, smarter than I am, observing these guys (and sometimes gals) very closely because I’d really like to shine some sunlight on what’s actually going on up there. I am suspicious but feel helpless. Too bad Jessica Braverman didn’t win a council seat: she seemed real and honest.

22 Are they Inept, or sneaky December 26, 2013 at 6:55 PM

Note: I’m not ot saying the councilmen are dishonest.

23 OGRE December 26, 2013 at 7:13 PM

Something have been said that account for the high salary….(employee leaving getting their entitled monies and this is OK) their was also a very contentious negotiation with the employee groups (including the police, which are one of the lowest paid in the county)…………so when you add that all up……..it sounds and looks high, when in fact it is not.

24 TinFoiler December 26, 2013 at 7:14 PM

Scribes and Pharisees trying to justify their Worth. History repeats itself and the People who have a say do NOTHING.
Hint: Get rid of her and CAP that positions salary. PERIOD, end of story.

25 M.S.G. December 26, 2013 at 7:43 PM

People of Pleasant Hill just say NO!!
Really $150,000 another out of line pension for an assistant!
City Manager you can’t do your job then get OUT!!
Let your Assistant Manager do your job!
he or she is probably a lot cheaper then you are!!!!!
PEOPLE of Pleasant Hill WAKE UP!!!
Do SOMETHING about IT!!
Or you will be another Bell California.

26 Mr Obvious December 26, 2013 at 7:50 PM

What is the big deal? People pointed out the Former Chief Peter Dunbar was making approximately $10,000 less than the Sheriff of the County of Contra Costa. 47 sworn vs over 1100 Sheriff’s employees. No one seemed to care but somehow now it’s a big deal? People are truly amazing. People piss and moan about poor Jackie boy getting passed over for a strictly ceremonial ego driven mayoral position and miss the big stuff like where is the money going? Who is responsible for forcing Margolis out and contracting with a private attorney? Why none other than David Durant.

27 M.S.G. December 26, 2013 at 8:27 PM

They are just following your Commander and Chief.
LIE LIE LIE
Do what ever they WANT
With a OH WELL ATTITUDE
WAKE UP

28 fulubulu December 26, 2013 at 9:52 PM

Bummer. We came in second. Let’s do better in 2014 and finish first! Go PH! I love that “downtown” is a shopping center too!

29 Insider December 26, 2013 at 10:06 PM

@29… thanks for reading my post at #21.

I wish our fellow Claycordians would read it before making false assumptions and then flying off the handle.

30 vindex December 26, 2013 at 10:27 PM

This is unbelievable. Is this at the feet of the City Manager? The City Council? Both? Someone should get fired for this.

31 anon December 27, 2013 at 1:35 AM

Do contractors not have.a conscience ???? Or do they just bill until they are caught? It isn’t about what one can get away with – it is about serving your community to make it better. Clearly, Janet Coleson and her firm of Richards, Watson and Gershon isn’t Rotary. Or Presbyterian. Or interested in serving the public good other than lining their own pockets.

32 anon December 27, 2013 at 1:44 AM

I’m sorry. But I am very shocked and dismayed by this story. In the old days, it was a good thing to volunteer one’s services or discount them greatly as a public service. Doing so gave one a chance to showcase the fine professional skills one had in public while serving the community. Public display of one’s work while in public service usually meant free advertising into the business community and taking advantage of the public till was something that happened in Louisiana or Cgicago or NYC – not small, hometown America! For shame!!

33 anon December 27, 2013 at 1:48 AM

American and its future begins or ends right here – in a smalltown just like this. It calls for those who do care to serve and make a difference to get involved now. Fill up every seat in the council chambers and attend each meeting. Get involved! I hope there are enough who are disgusted enough that they get involved and stay involved.

34 Jack Weir December 27, 2013 at 6:23 AM

The figure reported as compensation for former Pleasant Hill in-house City Attorney Deborah Margolis in 2012 is extraordinary, as it included her mid-year salary earned to date plus the termination amount set by her employment contract. Such termination clauses are common with in-house city attorneys (and city managers) in California.
The city council decided to pursue other options for city attorney services, with a goal of lowering overall costs. The new city attorney only spends two days a week on normal city affairs. Also, outside firms generally have specialty lawyers available at lower rates than those charged to augment the knowledge of in-house attorneys in unusual cases where outside counsel is required. The current trend in California is toward hiring outside law firms.
The city council will review the cost effectiveness of the new approach in the annual budget analysis cycle.

35 Charles-the-cat December 27, 2013 at 7:18 AM

According to the story, this amount is split between the salaried position that was vacated around midyear 2012 and the hourly fee paid to a private attorney.for the remainder of the year. The $300000 salaried position is extreme for a city the size of Pleasant Hill and it appears that the private attorney billed the city for around 1200 hours work which implies that she was working 40+ hours each week for the half year that she was retained. Both the salary and the hours billed point to very poor oversight on the part of the city managers.

36 Safety Second December 27, 2013 at 7:32 AM

Pleasant Hill voters are idiots. Year after year they re-elect the same condescending and patronizing council members. Now, P Hill is getting sued for their ANTI small business ordinances. These elitest councilmen are just like the other career political whores (i.e. DeSaulneir and Miller). Wise-up voters….Purge ALL encumbants.

37 Atticus Thraxx December 27, 2013 at 8:11 AM

I gotta meet the dude who wrangled that gig. $400k + to manage a “city” of 34 thousand? Bet he whistles to work everyday. Until now that is.

38 Dorothy Englund December 27, 2013 at 8:30 AM

@Insider 21
It doesn’t take an insider to see what’s going on. Anyone can ask for public records and perform his or her own analysis. However, it seems you are jumping to conclusions without performing the required analysis.

The State Controller’s 2012 statistics are misleading in the case of Pleasant Hill. The $137,692 “regular pay” for the City Attorney reflects a partial year. The City Attorney’s base salary was $206,944 in 2010, and gross salary was $217,773. The City Manager’s base salary was $229,820 in 2010, and gross salary was $253,745.

Management, and yes, even some non-management salaries and compensation are high at the local level. The City Manager makes about as much as the Director of CalTrans who has responsibility for thousands of employees and a much larger budget, and she makes about as much as the Governor of California. The City Attorney makes about as much as the State Attorney General and significantly more than the attorneys in the District Attorney’s Office.

However, it doesn’t stop there. City clerical workers also make more than their counterparts at the County, and state levels. It’s not just a management compensation problem.

The new Assistant Manager’s salary is very reasonable. He has a background in finance and accounting and administration. He is a nice complement to the City Manager who came up through City Planning (so is less skilled in the finance/accounting/public administration department).

The former Assistant to the City Manager had a base salary of $150,350 in 2010. So, it’s not like the City is suddenly spending more on administration. The City is reallocating the resources to the areas with the greatest need.

On the topic of the interim City Attorney – you can’t determine whether an outside contractor will cost the City more unless you compare total legal expenses before and after the City decided to retain a contractor in lieu of an employee. The budget for the City’s legal department or division was obviously much higher than the former City Attorney’s salary and benefits. It included other employees who supported the City Attorney’s work. And, of course, the current budget will include more than the amounts billed for Ms. Coleson’s hours.

We obviously need council members like Jack Weir who will take an objective look at employee compensation and ensure fiscal responsibility.

39 HMMMMMMm December 27, 2013 at 9:32 AM

Wow and look at what they put the rank and file P Hill police officers through over the past several years. Management took a major cut on salary and benefits to help force and eventually impose a contract on the officers and SGT’s only to later bring back everything they gave up. And then they pay out this kind of cash! The citizens of P Hill need to hold the leaders and department heads accountable including the current chief of police who led those PD negotiations and sold out those who serve the city.

40 Dorothy Englund December 27, 2013 at 9:46 AM

@HMMMMMMm #41
Most of what went on with contract negotiations happened in closed session so members of the public can’t really know why a majority of Council made the decisions they made regarding the management contracts and the police officers’ contracts.

From my limited analysis, it does appear that the City has shifted dollars away from the police department and to City administration over the years. A significant factor is the decrease in the number of police officers and that bothers me.

I addressed Council before one of the Closed Session meetings concerning contract negotiations. I submitted an exhibit that showed a 0% increase in salary for a senior police officer (and probably all police officers) the same year that a senior administrative employee received an approximate 16% raise.

I think someone needs to perform a comprehensive analysis and explain these anomalies. I also think every contract negotiation should require market comparisons (comparisons to other cities, counties, state agencies, and comparisons to comparable salaries and benefits in the private sector). If these decisions are budget driven, instead of market driven, we will continue to see excessive compensation for many positions at the local level (especially administrative and management positions)

41 Another PH Resident December 27, 2013 at 10:28 AM

@Dorothy #40

What if Jack decides to apply for another position outside the city again?

42 led December 27, 2013 at 10:30 AM

Sorry, Jack Weir, but if a 300k severance is normal for that kind of arrangement, then it’s probably a bad arrangement.

43 Dorothy Englund December 27, 2013 at 10:35 AM

@Another PH Resident
If Jack decides to apply for another position outside the city again, we will need to work that much harder to find a few more fiscal conservatives to serve on Council. And, we will need to work that much harder to find council members who are not “bought and paid for” by special interests (someone other than Harris, Carlson and Flaherty).

44 Idiocracy December 27, 2013 at 10:41 AM

How About we hire some nerdy college kid that’s really good at the SIm City game… You laugh but that game is basically a city building simulator with in depth economics etc.. I’d rather pay the eager kid 50k and see what he or she could do than these democrat union/handout sleezes.

45 Dorothy Englund December 27, 2013 at 10:45 AM

@led #44
I couldn’t agree more. Although, costly golden parachutes for management employees is one more reason to look at contracting out those services – one more reason to seek “out-house” legal counsel instead of “in-house” legal counsel.

46 Dorothy Englund December 27, 2013 at 11:06 AM

@Idocracy #46
Isn’t Carlson a Republican union/handout………?

47 Dorothy Englund December 27, 2013 at 11:07 AM

Sorry about the typo, Idiocracy!

48 Random Task December 27, 2013 at 11:17 AM

really

49 Random Task December 27, 2013 at 11:20 AM

This kind of thing happens all the time in concord everywhere I do believe concord just hired 3 overpaid scrubs to do the job of the mayor and the council because the council is only there to find ways of fleecing the city for their own cause and welfare …………go to a council meeting and watch how they talk down to the ones who voted em in and how they hire people with no regard for how much it costs …….jail time should be used to control the power trippers fleece us and go to jail…..I mean you rob a bank and you get 15 years ……rob the tax payer and get rich

50 Random Task December 27, 2013 at 11:23 AM

and for shame on all of you …you vote these crooks in and then stand in astonishment when they run away with the money ……..who’s fault is that ?

51 @Random Task December 27, 2013 at 12:07 PM

give facts, ie names and dates otherwise you are just talking out your butt as usual.

52 Johnny Bones December 27, 2013 at 12:08 PM

Jack Weir and Dorothy Englund….all of your fancy numbers…EVERYONE ASK THEM THIS….How much did the city spend on jobs delegated out by Margolis? There’s the hidden number. Margolis never represented the city in cases and never gave her own legal opinion. They were all out sourced to other firms. The council even hired outside negotiators and paid them $100,000 when negotiations are Margolis’s supposed expertise. Jack and Dorothy, please provide all of the numbers. I bet we get closer to $700,000 for just one year . You and should think before you speak Jack. You approved it all.

53 mika December 27, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Salary matches the Taj Mahal building they call city hall. Another boondoggle.

54 PH resident December 27, 2013 at 4:56 PM

Yeah, #55, so unattractive, the water in the ‘lake’ is dirty and smelly, and have you noticed the fountain?

55 Dorothy Englund December 27, 2013 at 7:08 PM

@Johnny Bones-
You could be right about those numbers – not that fancy, but then, I worked several years as a CPA. I agree that Debra subcontracted out most of the legal work. Although, that isn’t unusual for an in-house attorney whether you’re talking about a public agency or private company.

You are incorrect about Jack approving it all. Debra wasted $50,000 on an attorney from Southern California on the St. Theresa’s Retreat (STR) use permit application and probably another $15,000 on a court reporter who attended the Planning Commission and City Council hearings. That was before Jack’s time. In fact, I think Harris was Mayor and meeting with June Catalano and Debra Margolis during that fiasco. I’m also pretty sure that Jack didn’t approve Ms. Margolis’ contract. I reviewed it at one time several years ago, so I could be mistaken.

You may ask, why was the STR use permit such a fiasco? And, I’ll tell you. I asked the City if the project could comply with the Building Code and Fire Code long before Staff prepared a staff report and recommendations for the Planning Commission. Staff advised me that they wait until the City approves the use permit before the City checks the project for compliance with the Building Code and Fire Code. So, the City wasted tens of thousands of dollars and many, many staff hours and finally approved a project that couldn’t comply with the Fire Code.

Unfortunately, I have the same concerns about the new City Attorney that I had about Ms. Margolis. Both appear unfamiliar with the California Public Records Act and the Brown Act and that leaves Council open for criticism and complaints.

I also think it would have been prudent of the City Manager and the current City Attorney to advise Council to hold off on the Firearms Ordinance until after the dust settled on a few other cities who were likely to be sued. A City Attorney’s job is to protect a City from litigation, not add fuel to the fire. I am really concerned that neither she nor June Catalano saw this coming because several residents brought the possibility of litigation (and associated costs) to their attention.

56 Dorothy Englund December 27, 2013 at 7:13 PM

@Johnny Bones again
I don’t think those numbers (the amounts contracted out by Margolis) are “hidden.” I’m pretty sure those are included in the “actual” numbers for the Legal Department or Division (that has its own budget). You can certainly submit your own California Public Records Act request to the Finance Director (Mary McCarthy). She is very knowledgeable and helpful and you will be fine….unless Mary forwards your request to Janet Coleson.

57 J. December 29, 2013 at 8:31 AM

That’s a whopping amount of money.

58 Johnny Bones December 29, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Dorothy you’re missing the point. I know exactly what the numbers are. You’re “pretty sure” and think “a lot”. Yes, Weir was part of the city council that approved her contract. He was a part of the council that approved $100,000 for a negotiator. I’m never suggested anyone was hiding anything. There’s just more costs that came along with Margolis than what she was paid.

The bottom line is the city management is over compensated compared to their peers while the employees who are not in the management group are at the bottom. The previous council was more than willing to let that happen. No one listened to the employees during negotiations when they were pointing this fact out. Now all of a sudden it’s news that the managers are highly paid. June Catalano is in the top three in the county when it comes to pay so what did the city council do? They approved an assistant city manager with a total yearly package of nearly $210,000. By the way did I mention what the precious council did when the redevelopment money was taken away by the state? They kept two employees on, who were hired and paid for with the redevelopment dollars, to the tune of nearly $500,000 a year. That comes directly out of the general fund. When I said there’s way more to the story I wasn’t just talking about Margolis. It’s about crying poor when it comes to employee contracts then spending it like there’s money everywhere. Like I said, the City of Pleasant Hill has done a fantastic job when it comes to being smart with money. I just don’t like when the benefits aren’t shared by all of the employees, not just a few.

59 @Johnny Bones December 30, 2013 at 12:35 AM

Please identify the names of the 2 employees earning $500k per year that the “precious council” kept on and hired with redevelopment dollars. Also, are you sure that the $500k came from the General Fund and not one of the other funds that received redevelopment funds and assets?

http://www.ci.pleasant-hill.ca.us/documentcenter/view/5690

60 Dorothy Englund December 30, 2013 at 11:54 AM

@Johnny Bones-
You are contradicting yourself. First you write:

“How much did the city spend on jobs delegated out by Margolis? There’s the hidden number.”

And then, when I tell you the amounts aren’t hidden, you claim:

“I know exactly what the numbers are.”

At least when I’m “pretty sure,” I acknowledge that. If you know so much and have all the answers, all the “hidden numbers,” why don’t you post them for everyone to see (like I did with the 2010 “fancy” numbers that anyone can access off the public employee compensation data base)?

I do not agree that the City has “done a fantastic job when it comes to being smart with money.” The City spent over $50,000 on Peter Pierce (the LA Attorney who basically represented an Applicant’s interests instead of the interests of the citizens of Pleasant Hill. And, how much has June Catalano spent on Marilyn Manning? Has she ever contributed anything substantive through her feel-good facilitated meetings with the Police Officers?

I share your concern about money being shifted to some management positions, but it’s also a problem with money being shifted to administration (not just management employees). If your fellow police officers want to prepare a persuasive analysis that shows the historical trend (management vs. non-management, administrative vs. police salaries) and compares Pleasant Hill police officer salaries to comparable salaries in neighboring cities/communities, I’ll be happy to volunteer my time and help with that analysis.

Also, and correct me if I’m wrong, when management reopened negotiations with Council, didn’t Jack Weir vote against the new contract? It did seem like they got back in salary increases everything they gave up in benefits contributions. But, that’s been a few years ago and I’d have to go back through the old Council agendas and meeting minutes to verify one way or the other.

61 Johnny Bones December 30, 2013 at 1:31 PM

Dorothy you know nothing. You guess at everything. I called you out on it the other day not even knowing who you were. Now a story in the CC Times rag even shows that you assume everything. You assumed in your last post about what I do for a living. Please keep defending Weir. You see what road he’s driving down and you’re going with him.

62 Dorothy Englund December 30, 2013 at 2:08 PM

@ Johnny Bones-
Are you, or are you not, a city employee (or married to one)? Please answer truthfully.

And, why won’t you address all the inconsistencies in your previous post?

I don’t guess at everything. I spent several years auditing private and public companies so I follow the money and analyze the data. I provide numbers to support my conclusions and yet you, who know all about the “hidden numbers” won’t present any compelling data whatsoever.

I don’t know why you don’t like Jack Weir. He is the only Council member who campaigned on the issue of excessive management compensation, and you appear to agree with him on that front.

The Contra Costa Times endorsed Terri Williamson and Jack Weir over Michael Harris because Harris was torn between trying to please employees and representing the citizens of Pleasant Hill. I don’t think he’s torn at all, I think he is not representing the citizens of Pleasant Hill. Then, you have Tim Flaherty who, during the Candidate Forum stated that June Catalano is worth every penny – something about how she’s doing the job of six people or several departments – I don’t recall his exact words. So, explain why you target Jack Weir when it is Harris and Flaherty who don’t think management salaries are a problem.

63 Dorothy Englund December 30, 2013 at 3:10 PM

@ Johnny Bones again –
If you are an elected or appointed public official in Pleasant Hill (or married to one, or a “significant other” to one) please feel free to confirm or deny that as well.

Also, be sure to read my complaint before you go jumping to conclusions. Several residents have reviewed the video of that meeting and immediately agree that Harris, Carlson and Flaherty knew exactly what was going to transpire at that Council meeting.

One resident who doesn’t pay attention to City politics said that it was obviously planned. However, he interpreted Flaherty’s response to indicate that, although Flaherty knew exactly what was going to happen, he was uncomfortable with his role. That resident also mentioned that it is clear that Harris is the one who needs to go, but he is afraid that Harris will “throw Carlson under the bus.”

All the other residents who have seen the video believe “it’s petty,” and definitely orchestrated ahead of time – except perhaps for a few of Harris’ friends who won’t abandon him in his darkest hour. Now, that’s a true friend!

64 Johnny Bones December 30, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Dorothy the more you post the more my point about you is proven. I’m not inconsistent, I just don’t need to go back and forth with you. Keep on with your guesses and assumptions and your thinking. My facts are spot on. You speak before you think. Go back and read all of the council minutes and financial reports and my points will be absolutely proven.

This will be my final post about this subject. I only responded due to the Times story about you which confirms my beliefs about you.

65 Dorothy Englund December 30, 2013 at 4:12 PM

@Johnny Bones-
Oh Johnny, Johnny, Johnny, Johnny, whoops Johnny, whoops Johnny….

If your facts are “spot on” I’d love to see them. But no, you haven’t provided a single piece of data.

And, of course, you’re afraid to confirm who you are – even in the most general terms.

The Times story is good, but the Complaint is even better. I suggest you read it, after you’ve finished reading all of the council minutes and financial reports and proven your points.

66 Dorothy Englund December 30, 2013 at 4:15 PM

@Johnny Bones again –
If your buddies Harris, Carlson and Flaherty would be open and honest with the public, the public might not have to think the worst.

What are they afraid of? Answer…The Truth.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: