Does the attorney Dan Coffey claimed to consult work for the firm of Dewey, Cheatham and Howe? And, why did Cappuccino even bother, given his own expertise (chortle) in the matter?
Carl Malysz: Environmental study shouldn’t have been released to New Albany City Council, by Daniel Suddeath (News and Tribune).
According to Stephen Key, general counsel for the Hoosier State Press Association, Coffey breached executive session privileges by handing out the assessment.
He said there are provisions in the Indiana code that allow for discussion of certain litigation, but he said this case doesn’t qualify.“The problem is the litigation has to either already be filed, threatened in writing, or has to be a situation where it’s a case the council is considering filing,” he said.
Closed meetings are allowed for strategy planning for property acquisition, but Indiana code states those sessions are only for the
governing body that will potentially make the purchase.
In this case, it is the commission — not the council — that would make the buy.
Coffey defended his action by saying he felt obligated to let the public know about the contaminants. In addition to Robison, he said he consulted with an attorney — who he did not name — with the Indiana Department of Environmental Management before making the decision.
21 comments:
reads like a classic whistleblower case to me.
Reads like even more grandstanding bullshit to me. I hope they sue him, as an individual.
Despite his many errs, I have to side with Coffey on this one.
There is an environmental risk to the residents of the Fairmont Park district, and it is the contention of the Administration that the public should not have been made aware of the arsenic, the chromium, and the rest of the toxic soup we ALL knew was there out here, yet we could not get anyone to do anything about it.
They only tested when the "city" wanted to buy the property, and for leverage in bargaining, not when dozens of families begged the city to help us fight CCE, or the pollution left behind from former businesses.
It is common knowledge that there are large underground storage tanks filled with questionable substances, it is common knowledge that the large fires a decade or so ago involved some hazardous materials...
Perhaps in this case we shoudl not be so quick to give coffey a lashing, the way I see it, as long as there a risk to the public, despite how small that risk may be, if the city has evidence outlining a risk, the city has an obligation to inform the public, not try and hide it.
Coffey says the administration is trying to hide something but let's be clear:
He's accusing the Redevelopment Commission, including the chair of U of L's Physiology and Biophysics department, of intentionally putting the public at risk for political purposes.
I hope U of L sues him, too.
Chris, I agree with you 100%. The facts brought forth by Dan Coffey should have been made public long before now by the Redevelopment Commission. This site was identified as a possible brownfield as far back as September 1999 in the adopted Coprehensive Plan Year 2020, and the area was specifically mentioned in Chapter 7, subsection 7.5 - Redevelopment and Revitalization Activities, Paragraph 3.
My concern is what are the plans and why now? This site actually consists of two parcels of ground. One is addressed as 2043 Silver St. and the other is 2045 Silver St. and together consists of appox. 14 1/2 +/- acres. The 2043 property was vacant from 2002-2004, the 2045 property was vacant from late 2002-2004. Why didn't the city follow the Plan and buy the property, at a much lower cost. We had the same players involved then, Malysz, Rosenbarger, Woods. Why, all of a sudden is this property so important? Do I smell something?
And whose to say, if the property is contaminated as the first test suggest, it has not caused health problems. Especially, in the Beechwood Project, as they are in very close proximity to the property. Time to contact the EPA, as IDEM is useless!!!
Gus,
If you're going to traffic in innuendo, you should have the integrity to put your name alongside it. Otherwise, the smell you smell may be your own.
It bears noting that when asked, Gus fully complied with the blog policy and is known by the senior editor.
Bluegill - I hope Coffey succeeds in throwing more light on why suddenly the city wants to pay for someone elses' pollution? Are you not aware of the varied and serious toxic dumping that has happened here? Are you OK with poison under our neighborhoods? I have children, so maybe my concerns are more local. Your increasingly biased cover-up for this administration is very curious. Last week you were all for paving, now you're defending polluters, next week - slumlords?
Gil,
Your entitled to your opinion as I am mine, but I feel you should do a little research before you comment on issues.
A couple of thoughts.
First, I'm not sure what Mr. Coffey can be sued for. With apologies to Daniel, I found the portion of the article dealing with Mr. Key a little confusing. To me, it reads that Mr. Key was finding error with the actual handing out of the report. I'm not sure why the general counsel for HSPA would comment on that. I think Mr. Key found the executive session to be wrong, not the actual handing out of the report.
Second, here I thought a building with no roof was a problem.
Silly me.
greedygus1,
You'll note I've not commented on the veracity of any particular claims. I just don't think that spreading innuendo anonymously is a responsible thing to do.
If you have evidence of wrongdoing, by all means bring it forward. I'd just request that you stand by the allegations like a real person-- the same standard I and many others here have applied for years.
Should you or anyone continue to engage in anonymous character assassination - regardless of target - I'll be publicly requesting that Roger update the identity policy here at NAC to require that real names be revealed to everyone via the profile at all times.
If your insinuations of shenanigans are true, so be it. If, on the other hand, they're baseless and personal like Gina's, then the community will at least know with whom it's dealing. It's a matter of credibility.
Mark,
Coffey and Robison claim that breaking the rules by handing out the report was justified by the fact that the Council was discussing what could potentially result in legal action somewhere down the road. Mr. Key says that justification doesn't hold up because it only applies if a suit related to the site and involving the Council has already been filed, been threatened in writing, or the Council is considering filing suit themselves.
Beyond that, according to the paper, Coffey has made allegations that members of the Redevelopment Commission, the administration, the Council, and their attorneys have purposefully put the public at risk by engaging in a cover up. I think he should be accountable for that if evidence shows that not to be the case, especially since he has a long history of lying and making false accusations for political purposes.
It's one thing to say "I think the public should have this information". It's another to accuse
many people of a conspiracy to harm the public.
Jeff,
I'm sorry. I just don't read the article that way. Everything seems to go back to whether the council's closed session was legal or not. Again, why would the Press Association lawyer be consulted? Usually an open vs closed meeting situation. Look what he defined. It had to due with the legal reasons a closed meeting could be held. I believe Mr. Key would not have even been consulted by the newspaper if this had happened in an open session.
I don't think any of the arguments in the article actually go to whether Mr. Coffey should have released the report or not. It's all about the meeting--closed or open.
Is Coffey a grandstander? You bet. Can he be a total ass? You and I both know that personally. Still, if this is a total grandstand moment for Coffey, he missed a good opportunity to do it in an open meeting. He doesn't miss much, politically speaking.
I seem to have lost a comment somewhere??
Why are the comments about something different from the story? Mr. Coffey used the pretense of an executive session to reveal to the council, not to the public. That's what the story is about. You can't use executive sessions just because you want to keep something from the public. That's the law.
I have no problem, per se, with the public knowing about the potential for contamination of groundwater and the neighborhood. But that's not what the story is about. If the administration and the RC want to keep it secret, that's another story.
But the council president can't just decide that something is sensitive and he'd rather keep it quiet within the council. You can't exclude the public from a session where information is provided to the council except under very limited conditions.
Mr. Coffey SUBSEQUENTLY found a way to get the news out to the public. I don't know the RC rules, whether he violated them, or whether he should have. But what he shouldn't have done is to cast doubt on the executive session by discussing something that clearly falls under the open meetings law.
Book,
Agreed.
Agreed as well.
Coffey is guilty of doing that which he accuses others of doing.
Even a legal executive session isn't an attempt to involve the public. It's the exact opposite.
Coffey just seems to think rules and standards apply to everyone except him. There's nothing new in that. What's puzzling is why anyone would try to position his usual hypocrisy as some sort of heroism.
Oh goodie - yet another issue of concern to resident families thrown under the legal/procedural bus.
It's getting boring here, the energy you guys spend bashing Coffey/Price/Council obscures so many serious issues.
(shrugs)
Procedural faux pas, or merely egomaniacal political posturing, I honestly do not care how the information was "leaked", all I care is that it WAS leaked.
"Fools build houses, and wise men buy them."
COffey built it, and I am moving in to take advantage of it...
Just like his council presidency, Dan's heroic leak is designed solely to serve as ammo in his forthcoming mayoral bid.
Take it and do as you wish, but know the malign spirit underlying it being proffered.
roger - that's how democracy works, it's dirty and mean and the public learns what it wouldn't otherwise. Go Democracy!
Malign spiritedness or not, political ambitions or shear idiocy matters little in this instance.
While other areas in this city ahve been recieving attention for horrid things like train whistles, or someone painting their house a different color than what is acceptable, other areas of this city have been, and continue to be plagued with serious issues. Issues that may well threaten the health and well being of the community.
In this instance, for the most part, this area has been brushed off by the city when it came to concerns.
Now that the issue of ground contamination has come up, there are more questions that must be answered, and answered soon.
Has the contamination reached the water table, and if so, has the carcinogenic compounds reached the many small creeks and streams that flow not only in this macro area, but spread like a fan to other areas in the city.
Many many children play in these creeks, beside Fairmont Elementary, running down through the Robin Road Area, through the Hickoryvail neighborhood, and so on.
Perhaps a council member or members with a keen eye for environmental issues shoudl take a look at this...
(I think we have one who has a strong interest in environmental issues, and yet another who is well versed in industrial and chemical safety issues, and that council member in particular just may represent the district in question)
Post a Comment