The myth of the "Big Mystery"

The "Big Mystery" .... it comes in variations. It was the fodder of election rally cries for Professor Chuck Garner, Dr. Paul Scibielski, and Mike O'Bric. Variations yes, but essentially it went like this: What right did the previous city council have to build a "duplicate" city hall, wasting millions of taxpayer dollars? Why did they do it without asking citizens for permission? Why the conspiracy to build a Woodway Taj Mahal? Why are they wasting $100,000s on utilities for this "duplicate" city hall?

Above are copies of the the front page of the Waco Tribune Neighbor Plus Section, dated January 6, 2008. That's right, 2008 -- two and a half years ago. Written by Trib community editor Ken Sury, it details the new city building and its' completion. It details what it is to be used for, what the older building would now become, and what services would stay in the existing Public Safety building. It tells how the project came in under budget, and notes $660,000 of the project cost went to drainage improvements and the new paved parking behind city hall. Anyone who has watched a child's game at the Family Center (prior to Jan 2008) knows what a wonderful improvement this is, not only for parking sake but for nighttime safety due to parking lot lights. This lot also serves as overflow parking for Arboretum events as well. The article spends time detailing upgrades to the family center, which the city took over from a nonprofit committee. Heck, even if you didn't read the article you couldn't miss the pictures. So let's debunk the myth of the "Big Mystery" which is the newest municipal building.

First, the City of Woodway has had a long term building plan in place for years --- as any well run city should have. The plan called for adding another building as our city population grew. Good organizations know it's bad management if you wait too long to solve such a need. That is why cities develop long range plans, why efficiently run cities implement those plans before reaching a crisis point. The plan was to move certain city functions into a new building, leaving other departments in the old building with room to grow. Mission accomplished. But we also recognized a growing need for parking at the recently acquired Family Center. I can't remember the exact number, but roughly 2.5 adults show up to watch each child play in WFC sports. We discovered not only do parents come, but grandparents support their families too. Secondly, the city was prudent in funding this project. Money was set aside. When the project was complete, the city owed----zero. Nothing. The building was paid for with cash. It has never been a financial burden to the citizens, never caused their taxes to be raised one penny. Does the city pay for utilities on this building? Sure, just as Waco or Hewitt will pay when they add infrastructure. Finally, as the Trib article so vividly demonstrates, there was nothing secretive about this project. To the contrary, we wanted everyone to know that Woodway was a well managed, progressive place to live.

So you see, for anyone who cared to know, the new municipal building (now Woodway City Hall) was not and is not a mystery. But if you like to discuss mysteries, here are a couple of interesting ones to kick around:

1. With postings in the city newsletter, discussion at city council meetings, and this full page article in the paper, why didn't anyone come forward to complain until over two years later?

( Remember MOB has been sending his letter of lies for years)

2. Why weren't Dr Scibielski and Dr Garner paying attention to all this public information as this project went forward, starting three years ago?

3. If they really thought citizens had been wronged and duly cheated, why didn't Scibielski and Garner run for office when council seats came open in 2009? Heck, why didn't they just come forward as concerned citizens two years ago?

Truth is, no one was meaningfully concerned about the new building until MOB started his assassination campaign against city leaders and Yost Zachary. Since neither Garner nor Scibeilski show evidence of doing homework, offer proof of looking at city records, or served the city on any board that might have given them insight, I will opinion they didn't care until MOB told them to care. MOB surely pledged he would help them get elected if they did their part by promoting his claims. Sadly, they did and he did and truth was lost along the way.

Next Blog - The Deafening Silence.

Justice Required

"Then former Councilman Robert Humphrey came to ask whether the Council had acted to investigate the allegation he had presented at the June 14th meeting. City Attorney Mike Dixon assured Mr. Humphrey that indeed that allegation and other aspects of the situation had been investigated, and would be reported when possible. Note: If a lawsuit were not in progress, it may have been appropriate for the Council to request an investigation of the allegation. But as things stand, these issues are part of the City's defense of the case, and as such were investigated carefully well in advance of Mr. Humphrey's allegation."

These words, written by Councilman Chuck Garner, are posted on his blog. They are suppose to be an accurate portrayal of my exchange with the mayor/council at the last city meeting on July 12th. If your only source of information is Chuck's blog, you will probably come away with an understanding that is inaccurate and wrong. This is precisely the reason I called for the city to provide an internet format (live streaming would be best) of council meetings when I spoke at the second official meeting of the new council.

At the risk of confusing you a little, I need to talk about my addressing the council on June 14th. I had come before the council, at that meeting, with a concern of Karen O'Bric's denying the city required revenue fees from Arboretum rentals spanning a number of prior years. Highlighting just one customer, the uncollected fees would have resulted in revenue of over $2,500 - just one customer. Here's a quick point of reference --in my last term on the council, I served as liaison for the arboretum board to the city council. That position allowed me to develop a working understanding of that board and the fundamentals of how the arboretum functioned. Anyway, I told the council about information I had personally seen from the city arboretum records, and handed city secretary Jennifer Canniday a copy of this customer's correspondence that supported my concern. (Protocol is to hand any written information to the city secretary for her to disseminate to the council members). I ended my address by asking for the council to investigate KOB's practice's, reminding that she did not have the right to deny the city funding.

Within a couple of days after that meeting, Chuck made the following series of postings on his blog:

"Note: Two days after the meeting, all the Council members received a letter from Mr. O'Bric explaining that all large donors to the Arboretum are granted one free use of the facility each year. According to the letter, as a major donor ($13,843) to the Arboretum, Karen O'Bric was entitled to this and used it for the Baylor track team each of the past nine years. Set-up and cleanup were done at no expense to the City, which was not always the case with other "free" users of the facility. Apparently the current track team leadership did not realize that this free use of the facility had been a gift, and upon contacting the current Arboretum management, confusion on both sides apparently led to the accusation against Mrs. O'Bric."

"Note added 6/22: Before posting the note above, I verified with Yost Zakhary that large donors to the Arboretum are indeed granted one free rental each year. He did not know if Karen O'Bric was on the list of large donors."

"Note added 6/23: Yost Zakhary emailed me a clarification this afternoon - "The only large donors who receive a free rental each year are those who were the founders and made a large donation prior to 1998. Karen is not on that list of founders. If she made a large donation after that time, as others have, she was only entitled to a one time free rental."


What did his series of postings demonstrate? At best they demonstrate:
1. Chuck was happy to use information from the O'Brics as truth,
2. Chuck did not verify the accuracy of their information,
3. Chuck did not do any independent homework. There is a document, written by KOB herself, listing all the donors eligible for free space usage. Her name is not on that list. How is she magically on the list now?
4. Chuck has demonstrated the habit of asking others for a quick answer rather than looking for physical evidence. Well, except concerning Yost.

Flash forward now to the recent council meeting of July 12th. I addressed the council, and as formality dictates, stated my name and address. I then recounted how I had come before the council at a previous meeting (June 14th) with my concern of Karen O'Bric denying the city required fees from Arboretum rentals over a number of prior years. I then asked if any real investigation had been executed, and what the results were. Mayor Weber began by stating that he believed it had, but that he would not talk about the KOB case. As I respectfully responded to his comment, he deferred to the city legal counsel for confirmation. Mike Dixon, counsel for the city, gave a very careful response that indicated the city had reviewed certain KOB actions and would be looking into them further in the future (no specific detail). A little more guarded discussion, and then the Mayor asked if that answered my question. At this point I stated that KOB's situation demanded equity, and wanted to make sure the council would be treating this employee the same way they were treating employee Yost Zahkary. The mayor and at least one other council member verbally stated yes. I was also promised that all the information of that investigation would be made public.With those promises, I agreed that should be acceptable.

To keep council members as well as citizens clear, currently there are three different investigations/legal matters that should be in play. First, the investigation of Yost. I know the Mayor doesn't want it called an investigation, but my dad told me if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. Secondly, there is the lawsuit by KOB against the city. Not the city against her, but her against the city. The city's position is a defensive one in that matter. And finally, there is my discovery of revenue denial by Karen as an employee. This must be investigated as well. This issue was not investigated well in advance of my disclosure. That is simply not true - I was on the council at that time and it was never mentioned or revealed. Plus there are different legal ramifications in this if KOB is shown to benefit from her actions in some way.

Want things to get even more convoluted? According to MOB, all the new council members received campaign funding from MOB himself. Any voting by such members on MOB/KOB issues become ethic violations.

The council is currently weighing out the merits of some type of internet coverage of council meetings. A lot of things for Woodway have changed with this past election, and the days of trust are gone or damaged. We as citizens need an independent, objective way to review how our elected officials work for us. We need to be able to judge for ourselves if they are acting with integrity, acting smartly, and acting in the city's best interest. If they were elected on promises made to citizen voters, then voters deserve a way to verify that those verbal contracts are being kept. Blogs, even mine, can be filtered. The newspaper certainly is. In this day and time, we need to see for ourselves, make our own judgement. We need internet confirmation - audio and video. If the current council worries about cost, remind them of the money wasted on the independent legal review to once again investigate the lying allegations of MOB. Remind them and demand the convenience of the internet.

Next blog -- the "Big Secret" myth exposed.

The Doctor's Dilemma

Dilemma is defined as a situation requiring a choice between equally undesirable alternatives. Recent developments in the City of Woodway find Councilman Dr. Paul Scibielski facing a dilemma. The developments:

First, during recent budget meetings the council recognized a shortfall in city revenue resulting in a deficit of over $290,000 when compared to the budget. Secondly, at the last open meeting, the Woodway City Council issued the following public statement--

"The multitude of various allegations raised against the City Manager/Police Chief led to an internal City review which found no basis for any of the matters as alleged." This was a response to Mike O'Bric's letters of lies and slander.

I have inserted (above) the Campaign Flyer for Dr Paul, stating his promises and beliefs for/about the City of Woodway. Please click on the picture to enlarge it. In case the quality of the picture makes it hard to read, here are the major items:

"A Dedicated Advocate for Our Citizens"

" I am running on behalf of the citizens of Woodway to bring leadership and integrity to our city government...to make Woodway as great and effective as it should be.I am running to demand financial responsibility from our City Council...I will not be a "rubber stamp".

"No more wasting our tax dollars on:

a $2 million second city hall; $100,000's every year to operate 2 city halls;

$500,000 every year for extra city management;

$250,000 every year to replace city & police vehicles; just to name a few."

"No more increasing the taxes we pay every year....25% OVER 10 YEARS:

while the streets continue to deteriorate; the little work done is of poor quality; water and sewer lines aren't replaced; sewer rates are raised; and our water bills are going up".

"Dr. Paul Scibielski...a much needed advocate on our City Council"

Dr Paul's dilemma is simply this - stay with the lies, and with the way things are going, be labeled untruthful and risk his community reputation long term. Or come out now with the truth, confirm the previous lies, the involvement with Mike O'Bric, and face criticism now. Remember part of the definition of a dilemma is that neither choice is desirable. Because of that, Dr. Paul has been trying a third strategy --avoiding the public. He is hoping everyone will forget his campaign and association with MOB. He has evaded responsibility for his words, happy to take a leadership role without accepting accountability for his promises.

At the second council meeting I asked all the new members a series of questions, asking them to acknowledge by raising their hands. I asked if any had toured our city facilities (buildings, pumping stations, property, etc) pre-election. None acknowledged yes. I asked if they had visited with city staff to get their opinion about the state of city affairs. None had. I asked how many had reviewed the city budget or financial statement with the city controller. None had. I asked how many had help in their campaigns from MOB - again no one acknowledged yes. I have to confess before asking the new council members, I had posed these same questions (minus the last one) to city staff in different departments and knew what the truth was.

MOB has stated in the newspaper he donated to Dr Paul's campaign financially. He also helped with signs and even helped recruit Dr. Paul to run. So ask yourself, how would Dr. Paul know if there are (2) city halls (as in duplicates) if he never toured the facilities? How could he know that the "duplicate city halls" waste $100,000's in operation costs if he never looked at a financial statement, much less a utility bill? The truth is HE NEVER INVESTIGATED ANY OF THESE THINGS. I believe Dr Paul didn't even have enough knowledge to write the lies in his campaign flyer. Sadly, if you compare his flyer to previous MOB letters, the evidence shows he allowed MOB to write it. MOB's words that were accepted by Dr Paul as his own. The grand irony in this is Dr. Paul, with his fiery rhetoric promising he will not be a "rubber stamp", became just that -- he became MOB's rubber stamp.

Back to the dilemma- the truth is coming out. The previous council members understand MOB fabricated all the lies about our city facilities. The independent accounting firm that annually reviewed city statements found no irregularities. The new council's own internal review didn't find any truth to the allegations. And now the city is WASTING taxpayer money to confirm what has already been confirmed. (Remember Paul's promise to STOP wasting taxpayer money).

If Dr. Paul is ready to redeem himself with the public, he needs to come clean now. Not later, but now - before it's too late. He must admit the truth. He must fully expose his relationship with MOB. Lastly, he needs to apologize. Not with a bunch of qualifications or conditional statements, but a meaningful, sincere apology.

Or don't. Don't and wait for the independent audit to come out. Wait for a third confirmation that MOB lied to everyone. Wait for final confirmation that his campaign statements about the city are lies. Then see how understanding people are with his ethics.

To be fair to Dr Paul, there is one last option if he does hold real proof of a duplicate city hall, $100,000s in wasted operation costs, and wasted money on "silly" things like replacing police vehicles. He must immediately force the shut down of the duplicate city hall, stop the associated wasteful operational costs, and get rid of all "extra city management". He must stop replacement of aging police vehicles. Remember the budget deficit, currently at a negative $290,000? Take all that "wasteful money" and bring our city budget back positive. Dr. Paul, here's the opportunity to follow through on your promises and be the"dedicated advocate for our citizens".

Just don't forget --- the truth is coming, with or without you.

Happy 4th

Dear Friends,
I am enjoying the holiday and wanted to leave a note that my next posting will be next weekend. Have a safe and wonderful holiday.