Things we know, things we suspect

There is a bunch of speculation out there as to what I was saying in this post.

So, to clear the air after a day's more thought let's run through...

Things we know:

1. Councilor Tony Palmeri selected Mr. Buchholz, giving interactions he had with Mr. Buchholz before this meeting as the main reason.

2. Councilor Dennis McHugh selected Mr. Buchholz without giving any real reason.

3. Councilor Bob Poeschl requested a recess to think over which of the candidates he was going to support. Mr. Poeschl and Mr. Plameri had an off-microphone conversation for the entire recess. They were referring to the notes Mr. Poeschl made during the meeting in this conversation.

4. Mayor Paul Esslinger, by his own admission, came to the meeting with Mr. Buchholz selected.

5. An email was sent to several members of the council by Mr. Buchholz discussing the open position. This email was not made part of the council packet or public record before the meeting.

6. Mr. Poeschl, after the recess, gave his 'youthfulness' as the only reason to select Mr. Buchholz (who, according to his resume started his career in 1975).

From these facts, we know: A negative quorum was made when Mr. Palmeri and Mr. Poeschl discussed who to appoint. This is because Palmeri and McHugh had both indicated their choice. If Mr. Palmeri did, as it appears, try to convince Mr. Poeschl to also support Mr. Buchholz, Mr. Palmeri created a negative quroum, as three votes is enough to block any nominee. If Mr. Palmeri had the discussion with Mr. Poeschl on microphone in the open meeting, there would have been no violation.

Things we suspect:

1. Mr Poeschl really did not know who he was going to vote for going into the meeting. He should not have spoken to Mr. Palmeri, creating the negative quorum, but it was Mr. Palmeri who had previously stated who he supported that caused the problem.

2. Presumably Mr. Palmeri had a reason to select Mr. Buchholz that he did not want to mention in open session that he discussed with Mr. Poeschl in recess.

3. Mr's Palmeri, Esslinger and McHugh all came to the meeting with Mr. Buchholz as their selection. Mr. Buchholz did have contact with each of them outside of the meeting (which is legal), but did they have contact with each other? They all seemed pretty sure of their selection, with two giving indication they had Mr. Buchholz selected before they hit their seats at the meeting.

4. The whole matter stinks. It seems to me that Mr. Poeschl is caught up in some manuvering that he may not have been party to until the suspect recess.

Someone on the council needs to come clean about the process, or more research into pre-meeting correspondence and recess discussions needs to be done.


Anonymous said...

Jef you made a great presentation, you could be a strong candidate for the next ticket, but you seem to have taken a big gulp of the Esslinger Conspiracy Kool-Aid.

Don't join the Esslinger Bashers/Whiners club, you're better than that I think.

random n00b said...

Ignore that Koolaid nonsense Jef. The best thing for everyone is to get this out and settled. #3 seems odd. There were 15/16 candidates and yet everyone came "prepared" to the meeting? How could that happen without a walking quorum or open meetings violation? And if Palmeri can read statutes and make judgements and accusations based on that "layman's" reading, well YOU can, I can, we all can. But surely there is some "authority " that can be consulted for a last word? Even if it means filing some kind of formal complaint.
What exactly is the standard for what should have happened there?
Tony should be proud, we're all engaging in "critical thinking". Maybe this is all an elaborate test.
I've devoted a lot of time, I want a goddam A.

Arrr said...

The City Attorney said no laws were broken. So everybody calm down and step away from the conspiracy Kool-aid pitcher.

The vote swing has swung.

Now rather than 4-3 with winning liberals, we might have 5-2 with winning conservatives.

Now thats worth raising a glass and making a hearty Irish toast.

Anonymous said...

Really, you're that accepting of the city attorney's word on this? Yikes. Tony Palmeri himself has not accepted the city attorney's take on the law many times in the past, and has even gone so far as to challenge it, hasn't he? We've also seen the local DA and state AG disagree with our city attorney in the past. No disrespect intended to Ms. Lorenson, but I'd rather we hear the thoughts from a real authoritiative body, not someone beholden to the city and its council.

Anonymous said...

To what end? A slap on the wrist? What's the end game here? Jail time? Or just a personal vendetta?

Anonymous said...

I would think the end game would be to set the record straight once and for all and if mistakes were made, learning from them. Unless, of course, you beleive yourself and some members of the council are too all-knowing to learn anything new.

P.S. We've seen in the past where that attitude has gotten people in local government.