Kuehne’s Comments on Grand Jury Report
— by Jeffrey Wisniewski — 19 July 2010 — 2 comments below »
Although it was both too late and ultimately powerless, Councilmember Don Kuehne’s comments on the grand jury report at the last City Council meeting was a welcomed change…
And it was that much more difficult for the arguably poor public speaker considering the fact that both the City Manager and City Attorney were staring Kuehne down — quite intimidatingly too — while he spoke. (I was there.)
A rehash? So in other words he had nothing to say.
Mr. Kuehne:
The city claims it has addressed the issues and there are no more conflicts.
End of story.
Move along, nothing to see here.
Really?
There are numerous unanswered questions here. Ultimately, the city is STILL contracting with NEO for a number of services that are not related to affordable housing and that were awarded to NEO without competitive bidding. The city’s relationship with NEO should be terminated NOW.
Just a few of the loose ends that come to mind: If the address for NEO is a residence in southern California and that home is in the name of the city manager’s wife, as reported in the CC Times, then Oliva and/or his wife have probably been receiving rent under the terms of that lease. Are they continuing to collect rent from NEO for use of the home? Someone needs to follow the money here…. I seriously doubt Oliva has completely severed his ties, and that in exchange for turning NEO over to McKinney, there is some ongoing consideration. Grand Jury, are you listening? What “deal” was struck for Oliva and his clan to “retire” from NEO?
The CC Times reports that Oliva’s daughter is still on the NEO payroll for at least an additional 6 months to help with the “transition”. How can the city claim that the situation has been addressed, with Oliva’s daughter STILL on the payroll?
Apparently NEO has maintained an office on city owned property, and made liberal use of city personnel and resources to conduct their business. Does NEO still operate out of offices provided by the city? Is NEO paying for that via a lease? If they are essentially grafted into city staff, are they really contractors? The IRS has strict rules regarding the characterization of “contractors”. If they are functioning essentially as employees, the IRS will consider that they are employees. If the NEO gang are city employees per IRS rules, the conflicts with the city manager are even more apparent.
What other contractor gets free use of city offices? Even if the mailbox security and other contracts were put out to bid, how could another entity submit a competitive bid when NEO has the ability to undercut any bid because they get free use of city resources? It is clear that NEO has received special treatment, and continues to receive special treatment, from the city.
At the minimum, these continuing ties amount to additional violations of the prohibition against even the “appearance of impropriety” standard for public officials. Put in basic terms, the arrangement stinks, and continues to stink. No, Mr. Mayor, the “appearance of impropriety” issues have NOT been fully addressed.