Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Hello all.

I've been very busy at the paper this past 10 days. Our managing editor Mert Seaton and his wife brought a brand spanking new baby girl on July 2. Lucy Ann weighed 8 pounds and 10 ounces at birth. Already has daddy wrapped around her finger I hear from a reliable source.

Anyway, Mert took a couple weeks off to take care of mother and child, so I made a feeble attempt to fill in for him at the paper. If there are things left out or are done incorrectly, it's pretty much my fault, but I gave it my best shot and that's what counts.

Jackie Melton wrote a very good piece about the Springfield Skatepark Association being filed against by the city in circuit court.

This lawsuit is frivolous, but not trivial. The city is paying our money to sue a non-profit that does a world of good for a lot of good kids. I know because I've met the kids and they deserve the facility.

The situation legally is somewhat convoluted, but the bottom line is the Park Board is making a land grab: pure and simple.

The SSA has put a lot of time, effort and money into the improvements made to the property and turned it into a great place for kids to go and skateboard, inline skate and freestyle on their bikes. It's safe and the park rangers watch the kids closely and they are well-supervised by the staff, as well.

Kids love to hotdog for a reporter with a camera and they did it when I showed up, but Eric Henderson gave them stern warnings to be safe and not do anything daredevilish. The kids respect and like Eric and they listened to his warnings and they had a great time showing off for me and Darrell while we snapped away with our cameras.

This flap over the lease and supplemental agreement is all the result of big kids not taking a cue from the little kids about how to get along and play well with each other.

You know, I'm sure there are kids who don't care for each other at the Skatepark, but they stay out of each other's way and have fun skating. That's what they're there to do and it goes pretty well, most of the time.

I just wish Jodie Adams could do this.

It seems to me she just wants to control how everybody has fun, and if they don't want to change the game in mid-stream, she's gonna make them pay. I don't see any other reason for these law suits.

Why does she want the Park Board want to take control of the skatepark? Haven't they been doing ok for 10 or so years? Why won't they just renew the lease?

Somebody isn't being entirely forthcoming about this.

I honestly don't know who it is, but I have my suspicions.

Usually, I will look at who stands to gain the most.

In this case, I have to say there must be some reason the park board wants to control the land and the skatepark itself. Otherwise, the park board would have simply renewed the land lease and supplemental agreements and let the SSA control the operations.

I think any complaints about behavior and stuff going on in the general vicinity have been exaggerated by a lot of folks.

According the the CFP article and what I've read in the daily paper, the Park Board hasn't publicly provided any proof of the SSA violating the terms of the lease or agreement.

Jackie is a great reporter and I know she allowed the city attorney's office and the Park Board more than ample time to provide her with any documents demonstrating the SSA was in violation of any signed agreements.

It's really beginning to sound to me like the park board simply refused to renew the original agreement without making some drastic changes.

So, here we are. With the city filing two lawsuits against the SSA in what amounts to a good old-fashioned landgrab like the old days of the land barons and the railroad and countless other entities who just want what they want and they don't care who gets hurt.

In this case, I think the kids might suffer for it.

Usually, governments tend to screw up the day-to-day operations of projects they really aren't in the business of running in the first place. I don't think the Park Board is out there looking for people well-suited to supervising skateboarders.

A person who knows the activity should be supervising the facility. Period.

I haven't heard any allegations of malfeasance or inappropriate use of funds.

I've heard a lot of accusations levelled against the park system for the way it has handled golf in Springfield, but again, I can't get an entirely accurate read on the situation, because some people aren't saying anything about it.

I haven't lived here my whole life, but that doesn't mean I don't have the right to question the motives and methods of people running the community I live in.

I wholeheartedly believe this legal action by the city against the SSA is nothing more than a landgrab. I don't see any evidence that the facility is mismanaged and, so far, the Park Board hasn't been able or willing to provide documented evidence of violations of the agreements by the SSA.

I'm sure legal counsel for the SSA is competent, but I would make this suggestion: since the park board and the city attorney's office have not provided any evidence of violations in a public forum, I would subpoena any park board computer hard drives to assure the validity of any documents which may surface in the course of the trial.

I am not so sure some of our public officials are above attempting to create documents after the fact, in an effort to posthumously create a paper trail for the legal system to follow. Any violations would have to be documented in order for the court to rule in favor of the Park Board in these suits. Phone calls won't cut it. Maybe recorded phone messages, but I strongly suspect those don't exist either.

If documents turn up during litigation, subpoena and search park board and city attorney hard drives to validate those documents. Don't just accept a piece of paper with names and dates and signatures. At this point I don't really believe we should be taking anybody's word for anything.

Above all, I would encourage all citizens to make it a priority that the kids don't end up on the short end of the stick in this situation.

My ultimate hope would be for Jodie to grow up and learn to play well with others.

Well, friends and foes: that's what's in the kettle this time.

Hopefully, I'll be able to post more frequently in the future.

Happy Trails and enjoy what Life's Potluck serves up to you or....

SEND IT BACK TO THE KITCHEN!

3 comments:

Jackie Melton said...

I will note I wasn't too proud of this:

"City Manager Leds Council in Applauding Councilman Deaver"

You did a great job filling in for Mert, though, Stu, and I enjoyed working with you (as always). I'll still be glad to see Mert back tomorrow, don't get me wrong, but it was a pleasure.

I'd bet you'll be even "gladder" to see Mert back at his desk than me. ;)

Jason said...

"At this point I don't really believe we should be taking anybody's word for anything."

Except the folks with the SSA. You seem to be giving them a free pass while saying the city and park board are completely wrong.

Stu Solomon said...

Jason, that's not entirely true. You're claim that I am championing the SSA is understandable, but what I'm trying to emphasize is the Park Board's failure to claim the SSA was in violation of the terms of the original agreement. Instead, they seem to be inferring they have the right to change the terms of the original lease without the approval of the SSA. Most of these types of agreements are dependent on both parties agreeing to changes. The Park Board did not sign the agreement renewal presented to them by the SSA.

The Park Board, therefore, failed to renew the original agreement by not signing. After the fact, they presented a new agreement with changes significant enough for the SSA to refuse. Then mediation failed and now we have legal litigation. What changes did the Park Board seek?

Yes Jason, I am singling out the Park Board as the responsible party for this fiasco, because they are the party seeking to change the agreement and are not disclosing to the public what those changes are.

I don't really see this as championing the SSA. I see this as demanding to know what changes the Park Board sought to the original agreements.

I also want to know why, if it is a warranted and valid legal action, is the Park Board unwilling to disclose the nature of those changes? What I'm hearing from Adams is this is all business as usual. Nothing out of the ordinary. Ho hum. Just rewriting contracts.

Call me cynical, but if Annette Weatherman wanted the Park Board to assume operation of the facility, don't you think she'd make it official? Put it in writing, maybe? Send an email? Something? Instead, Adams claims Weatherman called her and said this, but Weatherman flatly denies it. So the situation degenerates into a she said/she said situation.

I'm not blindly believing anything Weatherman says. I'm simply pointing out the Park Board isn't revealing any documented evidence of violation and they are the party filing the suits. It's not a criminal case so we can't say the burden of proof lies with the Park Board, but the documentation of any violation of the orignial agreement certainly will.

If it makes you happy, I'll call for the subpoena of the SSA computer hard drives, as well. To ensure there were no deleted communications or documents created which may indicate their intention to relinquish operation of the skatepark to the Park Board.

And then there's the obvious question begging to be asked: what was it that prompted the city to drastically change the original agreement? Were the original agreement and the supplemental agreement so agregious to the Park Board's best interest? If so, why aren't they saying so?

If this is just a standard rewriting of a contract agreement, I don't think there would be a problem with the SSA signing it. I suspect there are significant enough changes to the agreement to prompt SSA and Weatherman to refuse to sign it.

If the changes are justified, I will fully endorse the Park Board's law suits against SSA. The Park Board is the people's representative in this matter. The problem is their refusal to disclose to the people the specific circumstances warranting this lawsuit.