Friday, August 30, 2013

Spencer Violations?

Based on what we have seen with regards to the Spencer DAG Community Center debacle, here are the potential violations of the Charter, the Code of Ethics, City Policy and state law Mr. Spencer may have issues with.  My comments are in Italics.

Pensacola City Charter Section 4.04. - Prohibitions.permanent link to this piece of content
(b) Interference with Administration. Except for the purpose of inquiries and investigations made in good faith, the City Council or Council Members shall deal with the City officers and employees, who are subject to the direction and supervision of the Mayor, solely through the Mayor. Neither the City Council nor Council Members shall give orders to any such officer or employee, either publicly or privately. It is the express intent of this Charter that recommendations for improvement of municipal governmental operations by individual Council Members be made solely to and through the Mayor.
That one is pretty clear.  The Mayor can't grant BFF powers to one Council member and not the other Council members.  
He directed Asmar and Maiberger without question through the RFQ process.

City of Pensacola Code of Ethics
Sec. 2-6-3. - Prohibitions.permanent link to this piece of content
(d) All members of council shall abstain from casting their vote and shall so declare upon the record and execute the appropriate form to be filed with the city clerk, whenever they have established that they would have an appearance of a conflict of interest by casting such vote.
Appearance of a conflict of interest means objective circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that a proposed decision by an individual official or employee may be reasonably criticized on the basis of bias, favoritism, or partiality, regardless of whether the circumstances meet the definition of a conflict of interest in F.S. Ch. 112, Pt. III.                                                    
(f) An official or employee must refrain from acting upon or participating in, formally or informally, a decision-making process with respect to any matter before the city, if acting on the matter, or failing to act upon the matter, may personally or financially be of personal benefit to himself, herself or a relative or business associate.
These two potential City ethics violations also appear clear. 
The Code of Ethics is stricter than State Statute in that it defines appearance of a conflict very clearly.  Spencer does vote for an unquestioned business associate (share office space and joint venture on projects and proposals)
Second, Spencer clearly participated in both formally and informally a decision making process that would personally benefit a business associate.  Again DAG is an unquestioned business associate in that they share office space and joint venture on projects and proposals.
Chapter 112 Florida Statutes
112.3143 Voting conflicts.
(3)(a) No county, municipal, or other local public officer shall vote in an official capacity upon any measure which would inure to his or her special private gain or loss; which he or she knows would inure to the special private gain or loss of any principal by whom he or she is retained or to the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained, other than an agency as defined in s. 112.312(2); or which he or she knows would inure to the special private gain or loss of a relative or business associate of the public officer. Such public officer shall, prior to the vote being taken, publicly state to the assembly the nature of the officer’s interest in the matter from which he or she is abstaining from voting and, within 15 days after the vote occurs, disclose the nature of his or her interest as a public record in a memorandum filed with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who shall incorporate the memorandum in the minutes.
(4) “Business associate” means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with a public officer, public employee, or candidate as a partner, joint venturer, corporate shareholder where the shares of such corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange, or coowner of property.
Spencer does vote for an unquestioned business associate (share office space and joint ventures on projects and proposals)
Sec. 2-6-4. - Enforcement.permanent link to this piece of content
(d) Enforcement of the remaining provisions of this code of ethics shall be enforced by the mayor, if violated by any employee of the City of Pensacola, and by the city council to the extent authorized by law if violated by the mayor or any member of council. Any violation of this Code may be subject to a penalty imposed by the city council or the mayor, as applicable, at their discretion.
Here are the only remaining questions:

  • Will City Council do anything about this?
  • Since it is an ordinance, can Council ignore a potential violation of an ordinance by one of its members under its oath of office?
  • If Council refuses to enforce the ordinance why are Citizens enforced upon when violating ordinances? (Panhandling, chickens, camping, taxi, waste disposal, parades, etc.)

Don't hold your breath. 

Regardless of the above noted violations, state law was cleary broken with regards to the Firms presentations held secretly at Aylstock Witkin law firm.  Under Florida law those presentations must be made in the public.            

287.055 Acquisition of professional architectural, engineering, landscape architectural, or surveying and mapping services; definitions; procedures; contingent fees prohibited; penalties.—

(1) SHORT TITLE.—This section shall be known as the “Consultants’ Competitive Negotiation Act.”

(2) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section:

(a) “Professional services” means those services within the scope of the practice of architecture, professional engineering, landscape architecture, or registered surveying and mapping, as defined by the laws of the state, or those performed by any architect, professional engineer, landscape architect, or registered surveyor and mapper in connection with his or her professional employment or practice.

(b) “Agency” means the state, a state agency, a municipality, a political subdivision, a school district, or a school board. The term “agency” does not extend to a nongovernmental developer that contributes public facilities to a political subdivision under s. 380.06 or ss. 163.3220-163.3243.

(c) “Firm” means any individual, firm, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity permitted by law to practice architecture, engineering, or surveying and mapping in the state.

(d) “Compensation” means the amount paid by the agency for professional services regardless of whether stated as compensation or stated as hourly rates, overhead rates, or other figures or formulas from which compensation can be calculated.

(e) “Agency official” means any elected or appointed officeholder, employee, consultant, person in the category of other personal service or any other person receiving compensation from the state, a state agency, municipality, or political subdivision, a school district or a school board.

(f) “Project” means that fixed capital outlay study or planning activity described in the public notice of the state or a state agency under paragraph (3)(a). A project may include:

1. A grouping of minor construction, rehabilitation, or renovation activities.

2. A grouping of substantially similar construction, rehabilitation, or renovation activities.

(g) A “continuing contract” is a contract for professional services entered into in accordance with all the procedures of this act between an agency and a firm whereby the firm provides professional services to the agency for projects in which the estimated construction cost of each individual project under the contract does not exceed $2 million, for study activity if the fee for professional services for each individual study under the contract does not exceed $200,000, or for work of a specified nature as outlined in the contract required by the agency, with the contract being for a fixed term or with no time limitation except that the contract must provide a termination clause. Firms providing professional services under continuing contracts shall not be required to bid against one another.

(h) A “design-build firm” means a partnership, corporation, or other legal entity that:

1. Is certified under s. 489.119 to engage in contracting through a certified or registered general contractor or a certified or registered building contractor as the qualifying agent; or

2. Is certified under s. 471.023 to practice or to offer to practice engineering; certified under s. 481.219 to practice or to offer to practice architecture; or certified under s. 481.319 to practice or to offer to practice landscape architecture.

(i) A “design-build contract” means a single contract with a design-build firm for the design and construction of a public construction project.

(j) A “design criteria package” means concise, performance-oriented drawings or specifications of the public construction project. The purpose of the design criteria package is to furnish sufficient information to permit design-build firms to prepare a bid or a response to an agency’s request for proposal, or to permit an agency to enter into a negotiated design-build contract. The design criteria package must specify performance-based criteria for the public construction project, including the legal description of the site, survey information concerning the site, interior space requirements, material quality standards, schematic layouts and conceptual design criteria of the project, cost or budget estimates, design and construction schedules, site development requirements, provisions for utilities, stormwater retention and disposal, and parking requirements applicable to the project.

(k) A “design criteria professional” means a firm who holds a current certificate of registration under chapter 481 to practice architecture or landscape architecture or a firm who holds a current certificate as a registered engineer under chapter 471 to practice engineering and who is employed by or under contract to the agency for the providing of professional architect services, landscape architect services, or engineering services in connection with the preparation of the design criteria package.

(l) “Negotiate” or any form of that word means to conduct legitimate, arms length discussions and conferences to reach an agreement on a term or price. For purposes of this section, the term does not include presentation of flat-fee schedules with no alternatives or discussion.


(a)1. Each agency shall publicly announce, in a uniform and consistent manner, each occasion when professional services must be purchased for a project the basic construction cost of which is estimated by the agency to exceed the threshold amount provided in s. 287.017 for CATEGORY FIVE or for a planning or study activity when the fee for professional services exceeds the threshold amount provided in s. 287.017 for CATEGORY TWO, except in cases of valid public emergencies certified by the agency head. The public notice must include a general description of the project and must indicate how interested consultants may apply for consideration.

2. Each agency shall provide a good faith estimate in determining whether the proposed activity meets the threshold amounts referred to in this paragraph.

(b) Each agency shall encourage firms engaged in the lawful practice of their professions that desire to provide professional services to the agency to submit annually statements of qualifications and performance data.

(c) Any firm or individual desiring to provide professional services to the agency must first be certified by the agency as qualified pursuant to law and the regulations of the agency. The agency must find that the firm or individual to be employed is fully qualified to render the required service. Among the factors to be considered in making this finding are the capabilities, adequacy of personnel, past record, and experience of the firm or individual.

(d) Each agency shall evaluate professional services, including capabilities, adequacy of personnel, past record, experience, whether the firm is a certified minority business enterprise as defined by the Florida Small and Minority Business Assistance Act, and other factors determined by the agency to be applicable to its particular requirements. When securing professional services, an agency must endeavor to meet the minority business enterprise procurement goals under s. 287.09451.

(e) The public must not be excluded from the proceedings under this section.


(a) For each proposed project, the agency shall evaluate current statements of qualifications and performance data on file with the agency, together with those that may be submitted by other firms regarding the proposed project, and shall conduct discussions with, and may require public presentations by, no fewer than three firms regarding their qualifications, approach to the project, and ability to furnish the required services.

(b) The agency shall select in order of preference no fewer than three firms deemed to be the most highly qualified to perform the required services. In determining whether a firm is qualified, the agency shall consider such factors as the ability of professional personnel; whether a firm is a certified minority business enterprise; past performance; willingness to meet time and budget requirements; location; recent, current, and projected workloads of the firms; and the volume of work previously awarded to each firm by the agency, with the object of effecting an equitable distribution of contracts among qualified firms, provided such distribution does not violate the principle of selection of the most highly qualified firms. The agency may request, accept, and consider proposals for the compensation to be paid under the contract only during competitive negotiations under subsection (5).

(c) This subsection does not apply to a professional service contract for a project the basic construction cost of which is estimated by the agency to be not in excess of the threshold amount provided in s. 287.017 for CATEGORY FIVE or for a planning or study activity when the fee for professional services is not in excess of the threshold amount provided in s. 287.017 for CATEGORY TWO. However, if, in using another procurement process, the majority of the compensation proposed by firms is in excess of the appropriate threshold amount, the agency shall reject all proposals and reinitiate the procurement pursuant to this subsection.

(d) Nothing in this act shall be construed to prohibit a continuing contract between a firm and an agency.

Thursday, August 29, 2013

Spencer Firm and DAG Partner on Pensacola Library Bid in 2008

It was on like bing-bong Jack!

Spencer's firm and DAG partnered to bid on the Pensacola Public Library A&E work according to the bid summary of the City of Pensacola.


Spencer wasn't on Council then but it does show a long term business relationship between the firms that has progressed to roomies.

All Hail Julius Spencer... He is in charge!

So far, we have seen Councilman Spencer:
  • Direct City staff in writing the RFQ for the Community Centers
  • Correct City Purchasing staff as to what would go into the RFQ
  • Hand pick the Committee that would evaluate the responses to the RFQ
  • Pick the date the finalists would present
  • Schedule the presentations.
That's where he stops right? 

Does Spencer leave the presentations to the City's purchasing staff and his hand selected committee of buddies.  Of course not.  Not Julius Spencer! He's in charge! He actually ends up taking over the process.

Below is a link to 20 seconds of audio from the meeting.  Click the orange button by Im In Charge to be absolutely shocked.

Spencer is quoted on the record stating "since I'm in charge of basically the procurement of professional design services on behalf of the City"

OMG! Julius needs to read what Charter Mama wrote unless Barker has another secret memo reversing the Charter.

Section 4.04. - Prohibitions.permanent link to this piece of content
(b) Interference with Administration. Except for the purpose of inquiries and investigations made in good faith, the City Council or Council Members shall deal with the City officers and employees, who are subject to the direction and supervision of the Mayor, solely through the Mayor. Neither the City Council nor Council Members shall give orders to any such officer or employee, either publicly or privately. It is the express intent of this Charter that recommendations for improvement of municipal governmental operations by individual Council Members be made solely to and through the Mayor.

Yesterday, a Citizen came forward with additional information on this matter,  I will be meeting with her today to get some additional insight and information, so this will not be the last of 3 on the FIRST DAG/Spencer deal.

Finally, after Spencer's committee picked Spencer's officemate as the most qualified for Spencer's RFQ, did Spencer vote on the issue when it came to Council?'s the proof

Tommorrow I will also summerize several potential ethics, charter and Florida law violations Council, the City Attorney, the SAO and other law enforcement organizations may want to investigate as what I have shown is merely some emails obtained and a proper investigation may show that all of the evidence I have presented is entirely wrong and Spencer had absolutely nothing to do with this process.

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Spencer / Legion + Woodlands = DAG Part 2 of 3

In part 1 of our saga, Julius Spencer had commandeered the RFQ process for the Legion Field and Woodland Heights Community Centers by insisting the RFQ be worded EXACTLY as he wished.

Now that the RFQ is out, Spencer must now load the RFQ selection committee with his choices.

Remember my comments are in Italics.  October 13 link says it all.

September 22, 2011 - Asmar writes Spencer stating " I need to recevie (sic) the Mayor's selection committee members. Please forward names to the Mayor and we can discuss during our briefing on Monday."  The email also states that 18 responses were received to the RFQ.

Hmmm... Asmar asks Spencer for the Mayor's selection committee members. Spencer's choice and the Mayor rubber stamps.

Get on it!

Spencer responds the same day stating " The selection committee is (yet to be finalized) comprised of OUT OF TOWN architects and/or architecture professors. MUST you have the final list for the Monday briefing? I hope not."


September 26, 2011 - Asmar prompts Spencer again that he only has one selectee to date. Spencer responds that he has another selectee. 

But its a doctor not an architect.


October 7, 2011 - Spencer forwards selectee bios of this "independent" group.

Dr with keen eye
College room mate
Friend of College Room Mate
Adams - Wayne Adams Daughter in Law

October 10, 2011 - All selected and provided the RFQ for review

What do I give them?  Spencer controls what they are sent.

October 13, 2011 - The "Independence" of this group is revealed. 

No kidding...College room mate

November 23, 2011 - Asmar writes Spencer and states if schedules can't be coordinated, then purchasing wants to suggest "a local committee"

This gets Spencer scrambling so he continues to control the committee.


November 23, 2011 - Spencer kicks it in to contact college room mate to get him in gear. 

Cats Herded

November 23, 2011 - Spencer sets the presentation agenda for Dec 7.  Item noted is it is a live broadcast. 

Live-Broadcast Directed by Spencer

What is clear:
  • Spencer controlled RFQ
  • Spencer controlled Committee
  • Spencer controlled presentations
  • Spencer's independent committee included HIS contacts
Remember, City Council doesn't know Spencer is involved, we have not appointed him to be involved.  This is the Mayor, the Chief of Staff (de fecto Mayor) and BFF Spencer cooking some community centers outside the sunshine for a recommendation and contract that Spencer WILL vote on.

Notice the club atmosphere of the dialogue between Asmar and Spencer.  B, Chief, etc.

In our next installment, we will discuss the committee presentations, the openness of the process and the result.

Stay tuned!

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Spencer / Legion + Woodlands = DAG Part 1 of 3

When he was elected, Mayor Hayward announced that he was going to use up all of the City's LOST funds through 2017 to build the Legion Field and Woodland Heights Community Centers.

The City had just completed the Sanders Beach Center.  In completing that center, Quina Grundhoefer (QG) had done the architecture work.

But 2 new centers were going up and the Mayor's BFF was a Councilman and an architect with a vision for what he wanted and who he wanted to do the work.

Italics are my comments

July 19, 2011  - Quina Grundhoefer is asking about their status as the A&E Firm for the Legion Field Neighborhood Resources Center. Ask who?  Ask Asmar


August 11, 2011 - Julius Spencer announces via email "I strongly feel that it is our responsibility to "announce" loudly and clearly that the Woodlands project is one that has the potential for positive sociological impact. I do not want the RFQ to overlook or gloss over the reality that we expect this $3million expenditure to be manifested as a transformation for this area of a high African American population. The reality is that most talented architects are also social engineers (!) --- they take great pride in participating in positive change for communities. This project could be a headliner for other communities to emulate. THUS - I have drastically rewritten the standard "la, la, la" language of an RFQ.

Well what can I add to that!


August 15, 2011 - Maiberger is ordered to get with Spencer regarding the RFQ.

Little does he know what he is in for.


August 16, 2011 - Spencer micromanages every word of the RFQ.

- replace word, results, with word, data, after census
- delete word, associated, as per chief Simmons (crime reference)
- is 8.9 acre site specific only to Legion? I think so. The word is simply Center, and it is jot clear.
- delete adjective "new" that precedes Mayor
- add "will be"... Legion Field Resource Center WILL BE

Can you imagine what it is like to work FOR him?


August 16, 2011 - "This RFQ is going to be a great start for changing the city's streetscapes in a very, very positive way.

I am sending a scan separately that shows I did not intend for the minutia of the project to show up AT ALL for this RFQ. To do so is following the "old way"... we need the selected architect to do ALL of the programming w/ the focus groups.

There should not be anything listed in detail such as kitchen w/ sink, cabinets, a room w/ a room divider, etc., etc. That is what I want to eliminate at this stage.

Most of all, nothing should imply that a gymnasium is the priority! (which is the case as presented). I thought that George and I covered this, but apparently it erroneously survived the review process. "

RFQ TO CHANGE THE WORLD!!!  The Lourve, the Pyramids, Versailles, the Woodland Height Community Center!!


See how Spencer "collaborates"


August 17, 2011 - Maiberger sends RFQ to Jerralds. 

Oh NO!  Jerralds wants input!  What do we do?  Let Asmar decide.


August 18, 2011 - Asmar to give Jerralds meeting but goes with RFQ


The Final RFQ


Oh so much more to come!

Monday, August 26, 2013

Hayward Hiding from Sunshine?

If you are Ashton Hayward, the one thing you don't want is to have emails in your City account that indicate how much you know or don't know about anything.

That's why he tells people to email him at his yahoo account.  It's not on the City servers if someone makes a public records request of his emails.

In the 2 screen shots below are details of emails from John Asmar to the Mayor's "private account" obtained in a public records request of Asmar's City emails.

I recently made a public records request of all emails to the Mayor's yahoo account relating to the Maritime Park as they are city records regardless of whether on his City address or to his yahoo account.  I received one email.

But due to other email requests I have dozens that went to his Yahoo account that he didn't disclose.

Is this a Sunshine violation?



Spencer the Powerful

Why do we need a CRA?

According to this email, Chairman Spencer has all the power he needs without a Board.

In this email regarding the Hixardt deal, Spencer is making a lot of decisions all on his own:

Paragraph 2 - "Chairman Spencer determined that the LOI did not offer sufficient proof of financing in order to close"  Who gave him that Omnipotent power to decide on his own?

Paragraph 3 - "CRA Chairman Spencer has offered an informal extension request..." What?  Under whose authority because in the next sentence W-L states "the full CRA Board is the only entity with the power to officially approve a request, but..."

But what?  Spencer will grant it anyway?

All Hail Spencer!

Spencer the Powerful

More Asmar Conduit?

Remember when Asmar was raking Megan Pratt over the coals about engaging an attorney separate from Messer to advise the CRA.

Below is an email to the attorney Megan engaged stating that he is not retained by the CRA and that his engagement would be the subject of CRA discussion.  Megan, the CRA chair at the time is copied.

The email is then flipped to Spencer.  Why Spencer?  Conduit?

FYI Spencer

Thursday, August 22, 2013

Trouble at the PNJ?

Is Asmar a Conduit to Spencer?

Below you will find an email which was forwarded by John Asmar to Brian Spencer.  Issues with this email:

  • The email includes an email from Dr. Megan Pratt detailing her thoughts on the "Back of House" loan made by the CRA to the CMPA.
  • It details her expectations she would require to support the loan.

d. Use of nonmembers as liaisons between board members

The Sunshine Law is applicable to meetings between a board member and an individual who is not a member of the board when that individual is being used as a liaison between, or to conduct a de facto meeting of, board members. See AGO 74-47 (city manager is not a member of the city council and thus may meet with individual council members; however, the manager may not act as a liaison for board members by circulating information and thoughts of individual council members).

Spencer Lays Out Bait and Switch Strategy to Asmar...Where's the Mayor?

In an email exchange below, Councilmember Spencer reveals many items that are extremely concerning and some, according to the Mayor, illegal for any other Council members:

  1. Councilmember Spencer directly asks staff member Clark Merritt the status of a new land disposal policy designed to let the Mayor identify properties for sale, negotiate the sale and merely bring the signed contract to Council for approval. (Council voted this idea DOWN).
  2. Merritt and Spencer had secretly been working on the plan since Spencer was asked by Asmar to work on the new policy individually, outside any Council appointment to do so.
  3. Asmar is actually the first person to even acknowledge that the group might actually want to get the concurrence of the Mayor before bringing a Mayoral policy change to Council. Nice!
In the most telling email, Spencer lays out his "two year prospective"
  • Mayor Council form of government is the bait and switch for a Strong Mayor shooby-doo.
  • Mayor needs to cram as much through while Council members are new and don't yet understand what is being crammed through.
  • Once Council figures out the game over time, declare they are obstructionists to "progress for our City"

Its right there folks!  Mini-Mayor Spencer and Asmar deciding policy and implementation strategy.

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Spencer Abuse of Power?

It happens.  You get a nail in your tire and it goes flat.  What to do?  If you are me, you dig that spare mini tire out of the back of the van and change it.

Not Councilman Brian Spencer! No!

If you are Councilman Spencer you whip out your IPad and email the City's Chief of Staff and Chief Administrative Officer to send a tow truck to retrieve your BMW.

I'm not joking.  With a combined compensation of $250,000 tax dollars per year, you contact the two highest ranking City officials to fix your issue.

Come Get My Car!

  • Was the request followed?
  • Did the City get billed?
  • Would this service be available for every Citizen or just the Mayor's BFF?
I'll be copying the PNJ.  But don't hold your breath. They don't print facts or ask unpleasant questions.

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

More On Spencer's Prohibited Actions

Below is an email summary of the meeting that Spencer attended that violated City purchasing policies which he was told not to attend by the CRA Director.

Items of note in this email exchange:
  1. Winterberg Lipp actually states for the record she will bring the unprepared matter to the CRA and "I can make the memo as vague as possible regarding the scope of work"  That's right.  I won't tell them what is actually going to be done if approved because we haven't decided yet.
  2. Spencer wants to discuss the results of a meeting he wasn't supposed to attend for a company he shares an office with with Asmar and the Mayor.
  3. The decision to bring the matter forward to the CRA is clearly made not by the the Mayor, not by the CRA Chairman, not by the CRA Director but by the contractor who actually runs the City.


Sunshine Presentation Doesn't Mention Emails! What?

Above is the link to today's sunshine training seminar to the City employees.

What a waste of time!  It doesn't even discuss emails!  Hello.  That's what the problem is!

It's just a way for Hayward to say he was doing something regarding sunshine training. I bet he receives multiple emails to his private yahoo account concerning city matters that we will never know about during the presentation.

Monday, August 19, 2013

Purchasing Rules Don't Apply to Spencer

Purchasing rules of the City require that vendors may not make contact with Council members while a RFP is outstanding until a contract has been approved by the Council.

Evidently those rules don't apply to Councilmember Spencer and it had former CRA Director Winterberg-Lipp concerned enough to document the Councilman's apparent inappropriate actions in an email to Asmar and Reynolds.

More curious is the relationship with DAG that Spencer's firm has.

SMP Architecture. 40 South Palafox Place. Suite 201
DAG Architects 40 South Palafox Place, Suite 201

No that's not a misprint.  Same address and Suite.

How come Council rules don't seem apply to Mr. Spencer? Should the CRA have been notified by staff of Spencer's actions?

More on Spencer DAG to come! 

Back with more!

After a few weeks out of the country and getting the kids back to school, I will be posting a plethora of information providing detailed insights into:

  • Special favors for a certain Council member
  • How a certain Council member has pre-approval of the direction the City is going
  • The stacking of RFP committees by the Mayor's office and a certain Council member
  • Who really ran the City
  • How information is passed to the Mayor outside the City's servers
  • How many decisions were made in the name of the Mayor that the documents reflect no notification of the Mayor at all.
  • How Asmar DID make hiring and firing decisions as a contractor
  • How close Pensacola was to seeing Quint Studer NOT bring the Blue Wahoos to Pensacola
  • How close the CPMA was to Ed Fleming leaving the CMPA case just prior to trial for NONPAYMENT of fees owed.
I should be able to keep up with 2 posts a day for months to come.


Wednesday, August 7, 2013

Boss Mayor Asmar...under contract to Mayor yet supervising City staff???


Leaves little question who ran Derek Cosson in City Hall.

Are there any Labor issues with City Employees reporting to contractors?