"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.
