May 23, 2013 LeBel Questions James Craine on East End Food City TIF and Masengill Springs Food City TIF

On May 21, the Morristown City Council approved a $2.5 TIF (tax incremental financing) for the Masengill Springs Food City by a 4-3 vote. In favor were Alvis, Bivens, Chesney, and Thomas and opposed were Garrett, LeBel, and Senter.

These videos show what took place before the vote on the Masengill Springs TIF.

James Craine, vice-chairman of the IDB, stated that he performed the Masengill Springs economic impact study that is the basis for the IDB's recommendation of a TIF. Craine said that he was requested to perform the study by the IDB of which he is a member. He added that he was paid approximately $5,000.00 for his work. [Apologies for the poor video but the audio is clear]



LeBel then grilled Craine about the IDB's handling of the only currently active TIF--the east end Barton Springs Food City TIF.



LeBel also questioned Craine about the Masengill Springs TIF that was on the council's agenda and that was later approved by a 4-3 vote.

 

January 18, 2012 David Wild and MUC Manager Jody Wigington Show Up To See City Council Reject Wild's Appointment to MUC Board

The LeBel Five will not compromise. David Wild, Mayor Thomas' eleventh nomination to the Morristown Utilities Commission Board of Commissioners, went down in flames yesterday. [Click on video]

Without discussion, the LeBel Five (Paul LeBel, Kay Senter, Bob Garrett, Chris Bivens, and Claude Jinks) set the fire and voted to reject Wild's appointment to MUC.

Mayor Danny Thomas and Councilman Gene Brooks supported Wild.

Wild came to the council meeting with MUC manager Jody Wigington to see his rejection. Pictured above are Jody Wigington in the suit and tie and David Wild in the blue sweater. "News"paper reporter Bob Moore is pictured in the background.

Wild knew his nomination would be rejected and really didn't care.  Wigington knew and wanted Wild to be rejected because Wigington supports the "overall game plan" of the LeBel Five.

What is the game plan?  An end-run around the votes of the 3,202 people who set up the current appointment process as part of the 2001 MUC REFERENDUM. 

Goerge McGuffin, who considers it vitally important that he keep the MUC seat that he has had for 34 years already, is the coach. LeBel is the quarterback. Senter, Garrett, Bivens, and Jinks are the offensive line. The coach and quarterback have called for an end-run around the voice of the people.

The goal is to keep Coach McGuff in charge of MUC and that will be done by overturning the votes of the 3,202 people who set up the current appointment process as part of changes approved in the 2001 MUC REFERENDUM.  The votes of 3,202 people are viewed as a necessary casualty in this struggle to hold on to power.

This diagram of the end-run:

1. The LeBel Five ask the Tennessee General Assembly to let the LeBel Five change the MUC Private Act and overturn the current appointment process that was set up by the people in the 2001 MUC REFERENDUM.  (DONE)

2. The LeBel Five get Rep. Don Miller and Sen. Steve Southerland to sponsor the changes to the MUC Private Act in the General Assembly, allowing the LeBel Five to change and overturn the appointment process that was set up by the people in the 2001 MUC REFERENDUM. (DONE)

3. The LeBel Five get the Tennessee General Assembly to go along, thus helping and allowing the LeBel Five to change and overturn the votes of the 3,202 voters who supported changes to MUC, including the current appointment process, in the 2001 MUC REFERENDUM. (IN PROGRESS)

If they can get the General Assembly to go along and allow the FIVE to overturn the REFERENDUM, the LeBel Five can then quickly appoint their one and only acceptable person--Coach George McGuffin--to MUC for another 5-year term. 

While the goal is to keep McGuffin on MUC, the bigger issue is the raw power grab that is exhibited by overturning a REFERENDUM. What's next?  What other Referenda are they willing to overturn when they suddenly decide that they don't agree with what the people voted FOR?

If personalities and politics and raw power are set aside, how can anyone stand up and say that it is moral and right and just for five people to overturn the results of a REFERENDUM just because THESE FIVE suddenly decide in 2011/2012 that they (and their Coach) don't like the MUC appointment process that was approved by 72% of the voters in the 2001 MUC REFERENDUM?

More to come...

August 21, 2011 Gene Brooks Exposes Bob Moore's Millennium Square Reporting. Brooks Prevented an Illegal Bidding that Could Have Cost the City $1.3+ Million

Since taking office in May 2009, Morristown Councilmember Gene Brooks has endured constant attacks from local "news"paper reporter Bob Moore. On Tuesday, August 16, Brooks apparently had had enough and decided to set the record straight on at least one matter-the Downtown Millennium Square project.

[In a nutshell, the Millennium project is where the City took Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) grant funds of roughly $1.3+ Million that had been intended for street, lighting, and drainage improvements around the Morristown College area with a greenways trailhead and parking at Kyle Park and moved that money to the downtown Millennium Square Partners group for the construction of a privately-owned retail shell and storefront. To get TDOT to go along with this, the City/Millennium group decided that the roof of the retail space would be called a "greenways trailhead" and have 22 or 23 parking spaces leased to the City. Click on the label Millennium Square at right for past blog posts on this topic.]

Brooks was responding to a July "news"paper article where Bob Moore allowed David Wild, one of the principals in Wild Building Contractors and a partner in the Millennium group, to attack Brooks and all the others who saw illegalities and violations of federal law in the Millennium deal.

Moore quotes David Wild as saying: "If it had not been for the unwarranted involvement of two or three individuals, this project would have already been finished...."

Translation: "I hate those people who raised valid legal questions about our nifty sweetheart deal. Councilmembers who try to protect City grant funds and make sure that everything is done legally don't have any right to do that." 

David Wild was reacting--not too kindly--to the fact that Brooks had pointed out the core conflicts of interest in the Wild/ Millennium Square/Brewer, Ingram & Fuller connections to TDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

David and Tim Wild wanted to wear Millennium Square Partners hats to get the $1.3 Million taxpayer-funded TDOT grant to build their MainStreet retail storefront/rooftop "trailhead' parking. Then David and Tim Wild wanted to put on their Wild Building Contractors hats to submit a bid and collect all the money for building their own Main Street storefront/rooftop "trailhead" parking.

Brooks got the big guns riled up. Brooks was attacked and made out to be the bad guy who was messing everything up. Todd Morgan with the City wrote to TDOT. Dan Brewer with the project architects Brewer, Ingram & Fuller wrote a letter to Todd that also went to TDOT.  Knoxville attorney Robert Noell with Woolf-McClane represented Wild Building Contractors and tried to refute Brooks' allegations in a lengthy letter to TDOT, claiming that there were no conflicts.

After all the dust had settled, TDOT found that Brooks's core allegations of conflicts of interest were, in fact, correct. TDOT disqualified Wild Building Contractors (David and Tim Wild) from bidding on the Millennium Square Partners (David and Tim Wild and others) Downtown project.  

In the video (above) Gene refers to Bob Moore's July 2011 article where Moore stated--falsely--that Wild had submitted the low bid on the project. MOORE:  "Wild Building Contractors submitted the low bid earlier this year, approximately $600,000 less than the second-place bidder."

Brooks points out in the video that Bob either made this up or was given false information. Wild never submitted the low bid on the project.  Wild never submitted a bid at all because Brooks was able to prevent them from illegally bidding on the project.

Brooks's remarks end by making the public and the other councilmembers aware that had Wild been allowed to submit a bid and, by chance, had Wild gotten the contract, then TDOT could have made the City pay back ALL the grant funds that had been received for allowing an illegal bid and award.

In the City's current financial mess, the City could not have absorbed a $1.3 Million dollar hit for improperly handling grant funds.

Gene Brooks was not only right, but he showed great courage in standing up to months and months of  criticism by very powerful people in order to ensure that an illegal bid was not submitted and that the City did not end up having to pay back $1.3 Million dollars of grant money.

1. The "news"paper has yet to correct Bob's front-page error on the Millennium project. [Usually, the paper runs a correction on Page 2 after incorrect statements have been made and pointed out.]

2. The "news"paper has yet to report anything about Gene Brooks's statement at the council meeting about Moore's biased--and even false--reporting on the Millennium deal.

3. The "news"paper has yet to report that Brooks's actions not only stopped an illegal bidding but saved the City $1.3 Million +.

So what did Moore do after Brooks's statement? After the meeting, Bob Moore headed straight for  Brooks. Moore did not say that he would check the article again for accuracy and correct any errors. Moore did not mention his incessant attacks on Brooks over the past 2+ years.  Moore did not apologize to Brooks for the reporting error.

Instead, Moore first asked who Brooks's lawyer is---because Brooks had said he would be glad to meet Moore to discuss Millennium but that Brooks would bring his lawyer to this meeting. Then  Moore started asking Brooks about the Hearts of Christ Ministry which Brooks supports and with which Brooks's wife and sister-in-law are involved.

February 4, 2011 District Attorney: TBI Investigation of David Purkey/Tennessee Highway Patrol: Reprimand of Purkey's Special Friend Trooper John R. Jones

After my post of December 30, 2010, many people asked me to post the actual letter from DA Steve Bebb to Criminal Court Judge John Dugger that was mentioned. Some people claimed it didn't exist. Some said that David Purkey would never lie to the "news"paper or to the public about anything. Others said if this was really true, the "news"paper would have reported it.

Well, the letter is posted above. You can click on the image to enlarge it and read it or print it out.

What brought about the TBI investigation and the DA's letter was a 2006 election-eve Purkey campaign postcard that said it was "paid for by John R. Jones" but did not mention Purkey's involvement with the postcard.

DA Bebb's letter states that the TBI investigation of former Hamblen County Mayor David Purkey found that Purkey apparently violated the election laws of the State of Tennessee.  Bebb then adds that he won't charge or prosecute Purkey because it might be costly and it might be difficult to seat a jury in Hamblen County--assuming Purkey would ask for a jury trial.

The postcard that the TBI investigated was a last-minute mailout by the Purkey campaign that did not acknowledge that Purkey was involved in the mailout or endorsed the message on the postcard.  For his part, Purkey, when questioned about the postcard by local "news"paper reporter Bob Moore,  denied any involvement in the mailing. [See newspaper article below and click on it to enlarge and read Purkey's comments at the end] 

Despite Purkey's very public denial of any involvement with the postcard, the TBI investigation found that Purkey was indeed involved and thus committed a Class "C" misdemeanor. Strangely, the DA stated nothing about the involvement of a friend of Purkey--John R. Jones, a Tennessee State Trooper. No mention of John R. Jones and no charges against John R. Jones.

Kind of funny how the local "news"paper reports a public official's denial of any involvement with a campaign postcard that was received by many people across the county but the same "news"paper never follows up and reports that a TBI investigation found that the official WAS involved with the postcard but the DA decided to give Purkey a "pass"!

In my December 30 post, I mentioned that the person whose name was put on the postcard (John R. Jones) happens to be a "special friend" of Purkey. While the DA didn't mention Jones in the letter to Judge Dugger, the THP investigated Jones' involvement and issued a written reprimand to Jones. [Click on the reprimand above]

So...the "news"paper refused to report that DA Bebb sent a letter to Judge Dugger stating that Purkey apparently committed a crime. The "news"paper refused to report that DA Bebb was not prosecuting Purkey because of Purkey's position, the difficulty in seating a jury, and to save money. The"news"paper refused to report that the person whose name was put on the Purkey postcard was Purkey's special friend Tennessee Highway Patrolman John R. Jones.

The "news"paper did report Purkey's denial of any involvement in the last-minute postcard. Then silence.  Apparently, it is "news" when the official says he isn't involved in the crime. But it isn't "news"---and it isn't reported at all---when the TBI investigation is over and it is discovered that the official was lying and covering up his involvement all along. 

And now David Purkey, who violated election laws, who lied to the press and public to cover up his involvement in violating election laws, and who got a "pass" from the District Attorney, is Assistant Commissioner of Homeland Security for the State of Tennessee.

Purkey's official crime was a misdemeanor.  The unofficial crime was that he lied to the press--and to the public--when he denied his involvement with his campaign postcard and even failed to admit that he knew the John R. Jones whose name was listed on the postcard.

And the cover-up continued as the investigation was ongoing. After he was caught in the violation of election law and after he had lied about his involvement with the campaign postcard, Purkey filled out a campaign financial disclosure form that said that [John] Rick Jones of Murfreesboro made a "loan" of $850 to Purkey's mayoral campaign on October 23, 2006.  Now there may be a check to the Purkey campaign from John Rick(y) Jones in October 2006 but you have to ask WHY would Jones be sending a check to Purkey's mayoral campaign over two months AFTER the postcard mailout and over two months AFTER the election? Purkey didn't need any loan AFTER the election was over. 

One reason Purkey may have reported the "loan" from Jones would be to avoid financial disclosure problems that could occur if he didn't report Jones' postcard/loan to the campaign. Click on the Financial Disclosure form below to enlarge.

November 17, 2010 Mayor, City Council, And the Nutty Lowland Sewer Contract

Yesterday, City Council approved ("ratified") City Administrator Tony Cox's hiring several weeks or maybe a month or more ago of an outside attorney (Mark Mamantov) to help the Council handle numerous financial issues with the State Comptroller's Office.  Click here for the State Comptroller's July 8, 2010, 5-page letter to the City.

[Cox did not have the authority to hire outside counsel.  A City Ordinance states that the Council, not the City Administrator, may hire outside counsel. Council's after-the-fact approval of what Tony had already done provided cover for Cox's violation of the City Ordinance. There is no doubt that Mr. Mamantov is an outstanding attorney.  Cox, however, jumped the gun and exceeded his authority in presuming to retain an attorney without a vote by Council.]

The big issue that Mamantov, City Attorney Dick Jessee, Mayor Barile, and City Councilmembers must deal with is the Lowland Sewer Contract ("Asset Purchase Agreement" is its title).

I'll put the contract on the blog soon. Yesterday, I spoke about the contract briefly during public comments. Much of the Lowland agreement is one-sided with just about every major term in favor of the Sellers (MPLG/Joe Fielden/Mike Ball).  Parts of the contract are outrageous/borderline outrageous. Former City Administrator Jim Crumley apparently negotiated the terms of the agreement and then brought the contract to Council in February 2009.

Crumley may have fed the Council a lot of bull when he presented the contract to them, but even with Crumley's sugarcoating, there is no doubt that several provisions in the contract should have raised serious questions and should have caused the current contract to be rejected by the entire Council in February 2009. Instead, five voted in favor of the contract (Mayor Barile, Councilmembers Rooney, Senter, McGuffin, and Jinks) and only one councilman (Rick Trent) voted "no."

Here are three of the contract terms that should have raised red flags and caused the contract to be revised or rejected:

1) Flow fees: The contract provided that the City would make a one-time payment of $750,000 to the Sellers and then pay "flow fees" of $182,500+ per year to the Sellers for 25 years. A total payout of about $5 Million.  Then a CPA came in for the City and converted the "flow fee" payments to a principal and interest schedule.  This 25-year flow fee/principal and interest schedule sent up big, red flags at the Comptroller's Office.  Apparently, the State Comptroller views the 25-year agreement (whether flow fees or principal and interest disguised as flow fees) as the equivalent of a long-term loan--the type of loan agreement that requires approval by the State Comptroller's Office. The City, of course, never requested approval of this contract/loan by the Comptroller's Office. Had it gone through that office as required, some of this mess might have been straightened out at the start.

2) Abandonment clause: This is a one-sided contract term that leaves you scratching your head.  The City paid $750,000 down for the plant and has already made the first $182,500 annual "flow fee" payment. The City will have to spend $50-$70 million or more in improvements to the plant. The "abandonment clause" says that if the City later decides to abandon or quit operating the Lowland Sewer Plant, the City must GIVE the Plant with the millions of dollars of improvements back to the Sellers AND still make all remaining payments for the 25-year term of the contract.  Sweet clause for the Sellers. Poison clause for the City.

That's like a businessman buying a small store, making a downpayment of $5,000, making payments of $10,000/yr, fixing it up at his expense, and then when he decides to quit operating the store, the contract says that he can't sell the store with the improvements he has made to the best bidder and pay off what he owes and keep the rest----no, he has to GIVE it back to the person who sold it to him AND STILL MAKE THE MONTHLY PAYMENTS to that person. No sane businessman would sign a contract with such a clause.

If you agree to make the payments NO MATTER WHAT, why would you ever agree to GIVE the plant back if you decide to quit operating it?  If you have to make the payments, for Pete's sake make sure the contract says that you get to keep the plant or that you can sell it to whoever you want to!!

And, no, this nutty abandon, give it back, and keep paying clause was not hidden in legalese in the 2009 contract. It was in plain English in black-and-white. It makes you wonder if the Lowland Sewer Contract was like the national healthcare bill. Nobody paid attention and read it.

3) Operating permit: Before approving the Lowland contract in 2009, the City knew that it would have to get a permit to operate the Lowland Wastewater Plant.  According to a statement made at yesterday's meeting by George Haggard,  the City does not have an operating permit. Sixteen months after purchasing the plant and $932,000+ later, the City doesn't have a permit to operate a plant that it "owns."

The City may get a permit --later.  The crazy part of the contract is that any businessman who was spending his own money would have held off on signing the contract or would have simply paid some earnest money and included a clause stating that the contract would not take effect and no further payments would be made until such time as the City obtained an operating permit. [Sort of like a real estate contract where you put down earnest money with the provision that you will make a good faith effort to obtain a loan, but if you are unable to get a loan, then the whole purchase agreement is void and you get your earnest money back.  The City, like any business or individual, should have had a clause stating that nothing would be paid until the City got its operating permit.]

Councilman Gene Brooks stated that he had been concerned about the Lowland deal before he was elected in May 2009. Brooks added that he got the Lowland documents, reviewed them, and went to Nashville to discuss this situation and other financial matters with the Comptroller. Carl Murphy and I went with Gene on that lengthy trip to discuss the legality of terms of the Lowland contract, the "flow fees" and principal/ interest schedule, and the illegal sewer fund to general fund loans that had been made in 07,08, and 09.

George Haggard, a local businessman, made some strong and important public comments yesterday.  Haggard noted that the City paid $750,000 down and has paid out over $182,000 more and still has no permit to operate the plant. Haggard added that the Lowland facility is in poor shape, that the Lowland contract was a bad deal, that Jim Crumley did not tell them the truth back in 2009, and that the City should try to get out of or renegotiate the Lowland contract now that the Comptroller has stepped in and everyone is looking more closely and questioning the original contract.

Although Councilman Brooks requested public discussion of this matter, the Mayor cut his remarks short. Brooks then added that Tony Cox has asked councilmembers to talk to Dick Jessee one-on-one about the Lowland deal. If Cox has his way, there will be little, if any, public discussion about the Lowland Contract and the huge costs that loom ahead if the City doesn't at least try to get out of this.

Once Cox decides that he has the magic number (four) in hand, then he'll put it on the agenda for a quick vote. There will be little or no public discussion because all the discussion will have taken place outside of the public eye.  Cox wants to minimize public deliberation by Council in regular meetings. and the Mayor and most councilmembers are going along for the ride with Cox just like they did with Crumley.  And we know where that got us!

Cox has made it clear that he prefers a tiny, cosmetic "patch" to the contract and then proceed down the $50-$70 million dollar path of more debt. Now the public is waiting to see if and when the Mayor or any councilmember has the courage to engage in public discussion of this important public issue.