Sandy Carmany on Willow Oaks: "I stand by my original statement of support for the manager's decision."
More: "In his weekly Items for Your Information memo to the city council, City Manager Mitchell Johnson provided 30+ pages of explanation and documentation (invoices, cancelled checks, etc.) of the additional costs incurred by United Maintenance's demolition work in the Willow Oaks area. There are notations from city staff on some documents disallowing costs due to being part of the base bid while others are marked as "extra."I do not have this information in electronic format so am unable to post it, but Mitch said it will be available in .PDF format for anyone who wants to get it from the Public Information Office."
My vote is that good decisions were made.
Why would Johnson set himself up to be such an easy target?
Posted by: meblogin | Jan 07, 2007 at 11:27 PM
http://bp1.blogger.com/_C9bum5bC7Co/RZdhYMpguHI/AAAAAAAAAHw/N83PeoopTOA/s1600-h/mitch+stuff+1.jpg
Posted by: benholder | Jan 08, 2007 at 12:37 AM
Ben, after reading what Sandy had to say and the PDF that you linked, it appears you might not have all the paperwork. Could that be the discrepancy?
Posted by: Sue | Jan 08, 2007 at 07:23 AM
ummmmm, Sue...could it be possible that you and sandy and the city do not want to talk about the documents I have. Your assesment is very interesting.
Posted by: benholder | Jan 08, 2007 at 08:02 AM
The document in the PDF link is included in the 30+ pages attached to Mitch's memo. I refer to some of its information in my post.
Posted by: Sandy Carmany | Jan 08, 2007 at 08:22 AM
please refer to the In the spirit part and the lack of documentation part in that document.
Posted by: benholder | Jan 08, 2007 at 09:21 AM
Ben, my man, this is no time to get snarky. You've been the point man on demonstrating possibly shinnanigans on this matter, don't roll over when challenged by resorting to snide remarks. Carmany says new information is available, if your response to people who ask you "what about this new information?" is to avoid the subject and cast aspersions on them for asking, you'll let us down.
What I'd like to hear from the Troublemaker is: "Rest assured, I'll be looking at the newly available information. I'll be checking the dates the paperwork was acquired to make sure that it isn't serving as after-the-fact justification for decisions previously made. I'll be doing the math to see if the new documents truly justify the payments. In the mean time, here are where there are inconcistencies between what we have been told previously and what we are now being told." -- That's what we need from the Troublemaker now.
Posted by: Roch101 | Jan 08, 2007 at 09:32 AM
I have seen the information and there is little to define what it was for. i am looking at it over and over and over..i did not mean to be snarky...I jsut would like for that Findings and recommendations document to be talked about...the payment was not made due to proepr procedure..it was paid in the spirit of keeping a good working relationship w the contracotr...and the lack of documentation.
Posted by: benholder | Jan 08, 2007 at 12:24 PM