+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31

Thread: Shitty of jewplin

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    jewplin Missery
    Posts
    311

    Default Letter cites advice on Rohr firing; investigator notes discussions on probe direction, added costs

    Letter cites advice on Rohr firing; investigator notes discussions on probe direction, added costs

    By Debby Woodin
    news@joplinglobe.com
    09:16 PM CDT March 12, 2014


    http://www.joplinglobe.com/topstorie...on-added-costs
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...0327#post10327

    It was special investigator Tom Loraine who advised Joplin officials in the firing of Mark Rohr without cause, a letter written by Loraine shows.

    The letter, dated Feb. 20, was obtained by The Joplin Globe through an open-records request filed on March 5.

    Loraine wrote the letter, addressed to the city in care of City Attorney Brian Head, last month after questions surfaced from City Council members and the public about the amount of Loraine’s $82,000 bill. The letter shows there was discussion between Head and Loraine before the investigator’s report was disclosed about how to fire Rohr.

    Loraine wrote that the extra cost beyond the council’s cap of $45,000 for his probe was incurred as a result of taking testimony about Rohr, who then was the city manager. A split council, in a late-night session Feb. 4 after hearing Loraine’s conclusions of the investigation, voted 5-4 to fire Rohr. The letter also refers to some of that testimony as “volunteered.”

    Rohr said the night of his firing: “I wasn’t even the target of the investigation, but the manner in which the investigator conducted the probe, he strayed very far from the charge. He instituted a calling line and, as a result, anyone who had a gripe with a decision I made” testified.

    Rohr said then that many of the comments made about him in the report were by employees or former employees of the Public Works Department who had been disciplined. “I explained that to him (Loraine) and went into great detail in terms of explaining those comments that were made and the motivation of those comments,” Rohr said the night of his firing.

    Some employees within the Public Works Department had been disciplined or demoted for problems that included the results of a software audit showing that about $150,000 in building permits and other fees had gone uncollected over a long period of time.

    Loraine, in the Feb. 20 letter, said that as he took depositions in the probe that was to primarily focus on ethical questions regarding Councilmen Bill Scearce and Mike Woolston and a note from Rohr’s desk, “Mr. Rohr’s conduct loomed larger than those issues originally outlined concerning Messrs. Scearce and Woolston.”

    He wrote that while taking a second deposition of Head, the city attorney, “I disclosed this problem to you and you advised me that I had full discretion to decide to expand the investigation to include Mr. Rohr and his relationship with city employees” and others. “As more witnesses were deposed, including both city employees and local citizens, it became clear that the issues surrounding Mr. Rohr could not be ignored, as they related to the core functioning of the city government itself.”

    Rohr said in response on Wednesday: “I stand by my earlier comments that the report was no more than rumor, gossip, innuendoes, half-truths and baldfaced lies. Anything in that report can be viewed in that context.”

    The letter does not explain those issues. Nine pages of Loraine’s report that are said to be about Rohr have been withheld from the public. The Globe has filed a lawsuit seeking their disclosure. A court hearing is set for March 31.

    Loraine wrote that he was to have “unfettered” authority to pursue any subject in the investigation, and that because of the Rohr information, he informed Head “before the $50,000 figure was passed that we would definitely exceed the written authorization amount of $40,000 plus $5,000 expenses. You assured me that obtaining additional authorization would not be a problem and would be forthcoming.”

    Head told the Globe earlier that Loraine mentioned to him about Jan. 15 that the costs were going to exceed the council cap, but Head said he did not think it would be much more. He also said there was no council meeting scheduled at the time at which he could ask the council to authorize more costs.

    “If you did not have time between January 15, 2014, and February 5, 2014, to formally obtain additional authorization, it is of no consequence to me,” Loraine wrote to Head. He wrote that he was preparing a report according to the deadline set by the council. “Once again I cannot emphasize enough the additional time and expense resulting from the necessity of expanding the investigation to include Mr. Rohr’s interrelationship in all these matters.”

    One paragraph of the letter is blacked out.

    In an email Wednesday, the Globe asked Head for an explanation of why the paragraph had been redacted. While Head did not respond, Assistant City Attorney Peter Edwards replied: “The redacted part contained a short synopsis of a city employee who was disciplined. This redaction was done to protect confidential personnel information related to the employee.”

    It was in the Feb. 20 letter that Loraine wrote to Head: “I recommended you not discharge Mr. Rohr for cause. Only that you consider a new course for the city under the without cause clause in his contract.”

    Councilman Benjamin Rosenberg introduced a resolution at the Feb. 4 meeting calling for termination of Rohr without cause.

    Rosenberg previously told the Globe that he decided during a closed meeting of the council with Loraine to call for Rohr’s firing. He said he told one of the attorneys representing the council that he wanted to do so and was given the resolution.

    Scearce told the Globe that he had asked Head several days before the Feb. 4 meeting to prepare all the documents that might be needed for the meeting, including a resolution to fire Rohr.

    Head told the Globe earlier that Scearce had said he wanted a resolution “in my pocket,” meaning he wanted one ready for the night of the meeting.

    Request denied

    CITY COUNCILMAN MIKE WOOLSTON said Wednesday that the city has denied his request to disclose the nine pages of the investigative report pertaining to Mark Rohr, and accompanying documents and testimony. He filed a request for it Feb. 22 under the Missouri open-records law, saying he intended to make the documents and testimony public.

    .


    All the shit unfit to print

    http://www.joplinglobe.com


  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    jewplin Missery
    Posts
    311

    Default 911 call comes up early on in probe

    911 call comes up early on in probe

    By Debby Woodin
    news@joplinglobe.com
    Sat Mar 15, 2014, 11:00 PM CDT


    http://www.joplinglobe.com/topstorie...ly-on-in-probe
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...0341#post10341

    JOPLIN, Mo. — Mark Rohr said Friday that investigator Tom Loraine’s decision to look into a domestic disturbance call at his home in 2012 is more evidence of a conspiracy by some City Council members and city employees to oust him as city manager.

    A 911 call summoning Joplin police to Rohr’s house on Dec. 29, 2012, regarding a domestic disturbance came up within the first three days of City Council-authorized investigation into two of its members, copies of the itemized bill for the probe show.

    The itemized billings were obtained from the city by the Globe as the result of an open records request filed March 5.

    Rohr said Friday the call was a family argument that had previously been looked at by the council without consequence.

    “The 911 call was based on a misunderstanding and miscommunication that took place in December 2012,” Rohr said Friday. “It was a matter looked into by the City Council in April 2013 and dismissed.”

    Rohr, who was fired without cause on Feb. 4 at the close of late-night meeting in which Loraine’s report and conclusions were given to the council, has maintained that he was never supposed to have been a target of the investigation.

    But Loraine, in the Feb. 20 letter to the council, said that as he took depositions in the probe that was to primarily focus on ethical questions regarding Councilmen Bill Scearce and Mike Woolston and a note from Rohr’s desk, “Mr. Rohr’s conduct loomed larger than those issues originally outlined concerning Messrs. Scearce and Woolston.

    “As more witnesses were deposed, including both city employees and local citizens, it became clear that the issues surrounding Mr. Rohr could not be ignored, as they related to the core functioning of the city government itself.”

    A log of the court reporting service used by Loraine refers to “Rohr-911 Call” as being one of the items reviewed. It is listed under the date of Nov. 7, 2013, which was the third day that the investigator took testimony in the probe, according to the bill. Among other things, Loraine set up a tip line so that city employees and members of the public could offer information for the investigation.

    In a billing on Nov. 19, it was noted that Loraine also was working on “whereabouts of 911 tape on Rohr.”

    How Loraine learned about the police report was not clear Friday. Loraine has not responded to numerous calls to talk about the investigation since it was released last month.

    An employee at Loraine’s office said Friday that he was out of town but that she would send Loraine a message that the Globe was seeking comment on his billing and the probe.

    Joplin police Chief Lane Roberts said the department provided the investigator with the report and a tape of the 911 call that led to the domestic incident report.

    “It was not a domestic violence report,” Roberts told the Globe. “It was a domestic disturbance. They had an argument, and the kids jumped the gun and called the police. There was no domestic violence.”

    Roberts said he told the council about the incident last year.

    “It was a domestic disturbance, and we determined that nothing happened other than an oral argument,” Roberts said.

    Asked if there had been other reports of domestic disturbances at the Rohr house, Roberts said there had not.

    Asked whether he felt any pressure because of Rohr’s position as his boss, Roberts said, “Mark never ever tried to direct me at any time” regarding the handling of incidents or arrests.

    The domestic disturbance call was made to police at 2:35 p.m. on the Saturday in 2012. The police responded to what an officer described in the report as a “possible physical disturbance.”

    One of Rohr’s stepdaughters had called the police, saying Rohr and her mother were arguing and her mother yelled to call 911.

    Police reported that Rohr’s wife, Lois, told them that she and Rohr had argued. She is quoted in the report as telling police “It was stupid, we were yelling and I screamed ‘Call 911’ out of anger.” She told the police there was no violence, the report states. Police officers noted that they saw no marks to indicate that she had been hit.

    An officer took Rohr aside and spoke with him. Rohr told the officer that one child in the house had hit a younger child, leaving a mark on the younger child’s back. “Mark got onto his stepson, and his wife got mad at Mark. Mark and Lois began verbally arguing,” report reads. It also states that Rohr said he did not hit his wife.

    The officers said they then spoke more to Rohr’s wife. She told them “she felt stupid for what she had done due to Mark’s job,” the report reads. “Lois insisted nothing physical happened and no threats were made.”

    The officers asked to look at the young son’s back and noted a “small, red mark.” The boy did not seem to be bothered by it, police noted.

    “Due to all the statements given it was determined no action was needed to be taken,” noted one of the officers in the report.

    Rohr on Friday questioned why the report surfaced again.

    “Why would that come up at all in the investigation, which was to look into to Mr. Scearce’s activity with a bookie, a missing Post-It note and Mr. Woolston’s business dealings with the property?”

    There has been public controversy, with residents appearing before the council and writing letters, and debate among council members about how the probe came to focus on Rohr.

    Councilman Mike Seibert had previously said he saw nothing new in the investigation report pertaining to Rohr about which the council was not already aware. He could not be reached on Friday to comment.

    Seibert said Rohr had spoken to the council in a closed session about the report last year. “It was a family situation, and it was explained, and I understood. The explanation I was given by Mr. Rohr was satisfactory to me.”

    Woolston had said earlier that “several council members are particularly curious how the investigation, the original intent of which was supposed to be relative to possible ethics violation of two sitting council members, then turned onto council employees. We did not intend for it to include employees.”

    The council member who called for firing Rohr, Benjamin Rosenberg, had said earlier that investigations “sometimes take odd turns, and this one took an odd turn.”

    Some residents have appeared at City Council meetings questioning the amount of Loraine’s bill, which climbed to nearly $82,000. The council had authorized $45,000.

    Loraine, in the Feb. 20 letter, said that he thought he had “unfettered” authority to look into whatever came before him.

    Rohr, in response, said that much of the information Loraine investigated was based on rumors and allegations, and involved largely disgruntled employees and former employees or those who disagreed with personnel decisions he had to make.

    Lawsuit

    NINE PAGES of Tom Loraine’s report are about Rohr and have been withheld by the city as a personnel record. The Globe has filed a lawsuit seeking a court order to disclose the full report, exhibits and testimony. It is to be heard March 31.


    All the shit unfit to print

    http://www.joplinglobe.com


  3. #13
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,075

    Default Council hears criticism on probe, Rohr dismissal

    Council hears criticism on probe, Rohr dismissal

    By Susan Redden
    news@joplinglobe.com
    March 17, 2014


    http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/x19...Rohr-dismissal
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...0343#post10343


    The Joplin City Council on Monday night again heard criticism from residents upset about the dismissal of Mark Rohr as city manager and related issues, and one resident said he has asked for an investigation by the state.

    Kim Seavy told the council that he had contacted the attorney general and the state auditor’s office. To questions after the meeting, Seavy said he was waiting to hear if the auditor would undertake a probe or if petitions would have to be circulated to demand a petition audit by the state.

    Seavy told the council that it had failed to look out for city funds by paying more than the agreed-upon amount for a council ethics investigation conducted by attorney Thomas Loraine.

    “The contract was clear and specific in the amount and the scope, and neither were followed,” he said. “Those who voted for paying more owe residents an apology or a resignation.”

    The investigator’s bill totaled $81,819. The council had authorized up to $45,000, plus expenses, without further authorization. The probe was sought to look into ethical questions concerning Councilman Bill Scearce’s long-ago association with a man ultimately convicted last year of bookmaking, and Councilman Mike Woolston in connection with the brokering of property sales at locations that now have been purchased for city redevelopment. The probe expanded to focus on Rohr, and the council voted 5-4 to fire him on Feb. 4, the same night it received the investigator’s report.

    Directing his comments to the five council members who approved the action and to City Attorney Brian Head, Seavy also said the council did not follow the Home Rule Charter in firing Rohr.

    “I’ll not remain silent; this has angered me,” he said. “By the time we get done you’ll understand.”

    Both Seavy and Charles McGrew had addressed the council at earlier meetings.

    McGrew on Monday night said he had been told earlier to be patient, but that there still were no viable answers about why the council had dismissed Rohr or paid the investigator more than was originally specified.

    “Some council members paid it with no questions asked,” he said. “So does that mean anybody can overcharge the city?”

    He said residents don’t understand why the investigator was allowed to go beyond the specified scope of the investigation.

    “We need some answers,” he said. “The citizens deserve to be in on it. I’m a little angry.”

    The comments brought no response from any of the five council members who voted for Rohr’s firing or to pay the remainder of the Loraine bill.

    But Councilman Gary Shaw told McGrew that he is “working on getting you some answers.”

    “I’m a little angry too,” Shaw said. “There are some things we can’t talk about involving employees, but you do have a right to know.”

    In other business, the council heard comments on a proposal to institute curbside recycling in the city. The measure is on the ballot, for an advisory vote, on April 8.

    Katrina Richards of the Young Professionals Network of the Joplin Area Chamber of Commerce said her group and other business leaders in Joplin support curbside recycling.

    “Surveys we have conducted show people favor it, even if they have to pay more,” she said.

    A number of network members and others who support recycling attended the meeting and stood to show their support.

    Another resident, Mike McGraw, said he does not believe residents favor recycling, especially if it results in higher costs. He questioned the purpose of an advisory vote that would not bind the council. He also questioned potential costs since the council has not approved a contract with the hauler.

    Head, the city attorney, and council members agreed that the vote is advisory. But Councilwoman Trisha Raney said she would support whatever decision is expressed by voters.

    “I don’t think it will pass, and I hope you’ll abide by the vote and not the noise,” McGraw said.


    ____________________________
    I am The Librarian
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/
    http://www.pastorlindstedt.org/forum/

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    jewplin Missery
    Posts
    311

    Default Joplin police acquire military vehicle

    Joplin police acquire military vehicle

    By Roger McKinney
    rmckinney@joplinglobe.com
    March 19, 2014


    http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/x33...litary-vehicle
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...0351#post10351

    — The Joplin Police Department now has a military mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicle, or MRAP, as a result of the end of the Iraq War and the wind-down of the Afghanistan War.

    The vehicle, with a value of $733,000, didn’t cost the department anything. Police Lt. Sloan Rowland said it was obtained through a government program after the Texas manufacturer refurbished it.

    Rowland said the vehicle isn’t something one can jump in and start driving.

    “We’ve got to do a driver’s training program,” he said.

    He said when it’s in operation, after radio and other equipment is installed, it will only be used in rare instances that may include situations where there is an active shooter.


    All the shit unfit to print

    http://www.joplinglobe.com


  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    jewplin Missery
    Posts
    311

    Default Group says state audit could exceed $100,000

    Group says state audit could exceed $100,000

    By Susan Redden
    news@joplinglobe.com
    March 21, 2014


    http://www.joplinglobe.com/topstorie...exceed-100-000
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...0365#post10365


    Signers do not seem dissuaded by the potential cost of a state audit being sought for Joplin, a spokesman for a group circulating petitions for the audit said Friday.

    The cost of the audit is being estimated at between $95,000 and $145,000, said Kim Seavy, one of the residents involved in the audit effort. None of the petition signers are questioning the amount, he said.

    “The state says it’s just a rough estimate,” he said. And there might be more that they decide they want to get into once they get here. But I’d rather pay, and get the answers.”

    Seavy said at midday Friday that he, personally, had collected about three dozen signatures, adding “there’s been a lot of interest.”

    He said about 12 people are involved in a core group. The group is collecting signatures in a petition drive to force a state audit aimed at investigating issues surrounding the firing of City Manager Mark Rohr and payments to a private investigator who was hired to look into potential council ethics violations.

    If the audit effort is successful, the city will be billed for the state costs to do the review, based on auditors’ time in Joplin and related expanses.

    The audit that would be done by the state would be a performance audit, according to Spence Jackson, spokesman for the office of state Auditor Thomas Schweich. He contrasted the review from financial audits completed annually for many cities and other units of government.

    An audit of city financial records and operations is conducted each year. Leslie Haase, finance director, said auditors with Cochran, Head, Vick & Co. recently finished their field work in Joplin on the audit for the fiscal year ending Oct. 31. The review will cost about $70,000, she said.

    “We have audits all the time from agencies that fund city projects and programs,” she said. “The Federal Transportation Administration just finished an audit, and we just had state and federal people here on health grants.”

    She said the federal inspector general’s office also has reviewed expenditures of a small amount of money spent so far from Community Development Block Grant funds the city received in the wake of the May 2011 tornado.

    Seavy has been among several residents who have addressed the City Council in recent meetings to criticize actions surrounding the dismissal of Rohr and payments to investigator Tom Loraine. The amount of those payments turned out to be almost twice what the council initially authorized for the probe.

    Loraine was hired by the City Council to look into ethical questions concerning two members of the council, but the probe expanded to focus on Rohr. The council voted 5-4 to fire Rohr on Feb. 4, the same night it received the investigator’s report.

    Seavy said the council should have to specify its reasons for firing Rohr.

    The investigator’s bill totaled $81,819. The council had authorized up to $45,000 without further authorization. The council has voted, also 5-4, to pay the full amount of the bill.

    Signatures

    Under state requirements for such an audit, the group must submit signatures equivalent to 10 percent of city residents who cast ballots in the last gubernatorial election. Seavy said the auditor’s office has told the group that it must collect 1,776 signatures of registered voters inside the city.


    All the shit unfit to print

    http://www.joplinglobe.com


  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    jewplin Missery
    Posts
    311

    Default Open records request made for emails between city attorney and investigator

    Open records request made for emails between city attorney and investigator

    By Wally Kennedy
    news@joplinglobe.com
    March 22, 2014


    http://www.joplinglobe.com/topstorie...d-investigator
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...0376#post10376

    JOPLIN, Mo. — Citing Missouri’s Sunshine Law, the Joplin Globe has requested 11 email communications from the city that occurred between City Attorney Brian Head and Tom Loraine, the Osage Beach attorney who was hired by the City Council to investigate ethical questions involving two of its members.

    The emails, which were sent between Oct. 17 and Dec. 17, were referenced in the billing statement submitted by Loraine to the city on Feb. 18. The city provided a copy of the itemized bill on March 5 after the Globe requested it under the Sunshine Law.

    Head, in an interview on Friday, said he does not think he had any direct communication with Loraine in those emails. He said the emails were from Loraine’s staff to him with regard to the setting up of interviews with witnesses and to the creation of a hotline that witnesses could call, among other things.

    He said it is likely the requested emails will be provided within a few days.

    “All of it is pretty easy to review,” he said. “We could cite attorney-client privilege and withhold them, but there is no need for that, in my opinion.”

    Head said Sunshine Law requests for information with regard to the investigation have been handed off to Peter Edwards, the city’s other attorney. Head said he wanted those requests to be looked at by “completely fresh eyes.”

    The billing statement makes reference to Loraine’s review of a tape on Oct. 30. It is not clear from the statement whether the tape reviewed was that of a 911 call that led to a domestic report at the home of former City Manager Mark Rohr on Dec. 29, 2012.

    Rohr has said that Loraine’s decision to look into the 911 call is evidence of a conspiracy by some City Council members and city employees to refocus the investigation and oust him as city manager. The call was in reference to a family argument that had previously been looked at by the council without consequence in April 2013.

    Head said, “I did not give him the tape. I don’t know precisely how he got that tape or was made aware of its existence. It might have been in the file we provided to him about that incident, but I doubt that.”

    Loraine, in a Feb. 20 letter to the council, said that he thought he had “unfettered” authority to look into whatever came before him. As he took depositions in the probe, Loraine said, “Mr. Rohr’s conduct loomed larger than those issues originally outlined concerning Messrs. (Bill) Scearce and (Mike) Woolston.

    “As more witnesses were deposed, including both city employees and local citizens, it became clear that the issues surrounding Mr. Rohr could not be ignored, as they related to the core functioning of the city government itself.”

    Rohr, who was fired without cause on Feb. 4 at the close of a late-night meeting in which Loraine’s report and conclusions were given to the council, has maintained that he was never supposed to have been a target of the investigation.

    How Loraine learned about the 911 tape and police report remains unclear. Loraine has not responded to numerous calls to talk about the investigation since it was released last month. Loraine’s staff did not respond on Friday to a message that requested an interview with the Globe.

    “These questions are questions that Tom has to answer,” Head said. “I did not sit in on the interviews that he conducted.”

    Joplin police Chief Lane Roberts has said the department provided the investigator with the report and a tape of the 911 call that led to the domestic incident report.

    Head said he did not provide Loraine with the names of witnesses he should interview.

    “Witnesses called on the hotline. Tom asked who is this person and could I get them to come and testify. In that sense, I was a liaison to ask someone to testify,” Head said.

    “A witness list develops after one person says something about someone who they say knows something, and that in turn leads to the next witness and the next witness after that, and so on.”

    It would appear from the billing statement that both Councilman Scearce and Benjamin Rosenberg had separately sought the drafting of resolutions to terminate Rohr’s employment from Head and Attorney Karl Blanchard, respectively.

    Head said, “Scearce approached me a week or so before Tom presented his report to the council and asked me for a resolution that he could use to terminate Rohr. Shortly after that, Scearce told me he intended to put my name forward as interim city manager.

    “When he told me that, I backed off. I told him I could not do the resolution. I could not advise on that stuff because I now had a conflict. All of the stuff that had been previously prepared, I gave to Karl (Blanchard). Here it is.”

    In addition to the emails, the billing statement makes reference to 27 telephone calls that occurred between Loraine or his staff between Oct. 17 and Feb. 5. Head said most of those telephone calls coincide with the periods in which Loraine visited Joplin to conduct his investigation.

    The travel expenses for Loraine, according to the billing statement, were by the hour, at a rate of $175 per hour.

    An example would be an entry on Jan. 28 in which Loraine had a brief telephone conference with Head, prepared for a deposition with Woolston, deposed Woolston for two hours and traveled back to his lake home, which took four hours. The total number of hours was 6 1/2. The fee was $1,137.50.

    Earlier that day, he billed 5 1/2 hours for a staff meeting, the travel time to Joplin, a brief telephone conference with Head and a one hour deposition with Rohr. That cost $962.50.

    The 12 hours totaled $2,100, of which he was paid $1,400 for driving his vehicle to and from Joplin. Mileage expenses of 50.5 per mile were also charged, along with food, gas and lodging expenses that would amount approximately to $1,100 to $1,300 per trip.

    According to the billing statement, Loraine made seven trips to Joplin.

    Councilman Gary Shaw, who had objected at a previous council meeting to some of the fees paid to Loraine, including the payment of $175 per hour for his driving time, in an interview on Friday, said the council majority approved those costs to get the matter behind them.

    “It’s old stuff now. It’s so aggravating to me,” Shaw said.

    The statement also shows that court reporter costs totaled $7,765.20 and that office rent totaled $1,400. That was in addition to the $72,290.83 invoice from Loraine which was paid in full earlier this month, according Leslie Haase, the city’s finance director. The council had authorized an expenditure of $45,000, but Loraine, in a letter to Head, said the final cost could exceed $75,000.

    The city has had in its possession for the past two weeks copies of the 53 interviews that Loraine conducted, according to Councilman Morris Glaze. Glaze, in an interview on Friday, said he has spent six hours reading 40 of those interviews but could not discuss their content.

    He said he has not been permitted to read 13 interviews that involved current city employees because of reasons related to personnel matters.

    On tap

    NINE PAGES of Tom Loraine’s report are about former City Manager Mark Rohr and have been withheld by the city as a personnel record. Rohr has declined to release those pages on the advice of his attorney. The Globe has filed a lawsuit seeking a court order to disclose the full report, exhibits and testimony. It is to be heard March 31.


    All the shit unfit to print

    http://www.joplinglobe.com


  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    jewplin Missery
    Posts
    311

    Default Residents bid goodbye to former Joplin city manager at reception

    Residents bid goodbye to former Joplin city manager at reception

    By Debby Woodin
    news@joplinglobe.com
    March 25, 2014


    http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/x54.../?state=taberU
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...0384#post10384


    JOPLIN, Mo. — About 150 people attended a reception Tuesday night at Central Christian Center to bid farewell to Mark Rohr, Joplin’s former city manager.

    They waited in line up to 45 minutes for their turn to speak to Rohr or shake hands.

    Rohr was fired by a 5-4 vote of the City Council on Feb. 4 after results of a council-ordered investigation were revealed to the council. That investigation, Rohr’s firing and the $82,000 bill from the investigator sparked a public controversy that continued Tuesday as petitions seeking a state audit of the probe and its cost were circulated among those who came to salute Rohr.

    Rohr said of the reception, held by Councilman Gary Shaw, “It’s very heartwarming to see the support that the community’s demonstrated towards me and the things we have tried to accomplish in Joplin, and I’m very appreciative.”

    He said he has mixed feelings about leaving for the new job he starts Monday as city manager of League City, Texas.

    “A big part of my heart will always be in Joplin, but I also am looking forward to my new responsibilities,” he said. “I want to see things happen in a positive manner in Joplin, but I’ve got another area of focus now and I owe it to the citizens of League City, Texas, to concentrate my efforts on what’s going on down there and trying to improve that community.”

    Rohr said he had come to no conclusions yet about whether he would take any court action regarding his firing, which he said earlier did not comply with the city’s Home Rule Charter.

    “I think it’s pretty evident that the citizens have some cleaning up to do in the town,” he said. “They’ve got a chance to do that in two weeks here,” alluding to the City Council election on April 8. “They have some other things they need to fix after that, and the citizens of Joplin, in my estimation, need to demand that they have nine City Council members that have no other agenda than the best interests of the city of Joplin, and that’s not what they have right now.”

    Nine pages of the investigative report are about Rohr and have been withheld by city officials, who contend that part of the report is confidential as a personnel record.

    Rohr has declined to release his copy of those pages. “Under legal advice, I’ve been advised not to do that at this point in time,” he said Tuesday. “I’ve had some consultations with my attorney. There’s nothing in there I’m concerned about. The city’s got themselves in a little bit of a jam in terms of how they’ve handled things, and I think we’ll just let that play out.”

    The Joplin Globe is seeking a court order directing the city to release the report as a public record. An evidentiary hearing on that request is scheduled for Monday in Jasper County Circuit Court in Joplin.

    Jane Cage, chairwoman of the Citizens Advisory Recovery Team, a group that was formed to take public input on the types of projects residents wanted to see as part of the city’s recovery from the 2011 tornado, helped Shaw organize the reception.

    Cage, asked if she has concerns about whether those plans will be carried out with Rohr gone, said: “Mark was a strong proponent and a visionary for recovery. And I believe we’ll miss his leadership. I do think, however, that all of us who are committed to recovery will step up to make sure that what citizens said was important to them is accomplished.”

    Among those who attended the reception was Kathy Wilson, who formerly served on the City Council when five members resigned before a recall election after firing a city manager.

    Wilson said she came to see Rohr “just to let him know that he had the people’s support who admired his leadership.” Asked what she appreciated about his leadership, she said: “The way he took the helm after the tornado. I know that there were a lot of people who participated in putting the town back together again, but it always takes leaders. There are leaders and there are followers.”

    Ramona Ellis, who attends Central Christian Center where Rohr and his family also attend church, said: “I like Mark, and I thought he did an excellent job in the tornado. He’s always there for everybody. He’s got a big heart for a lot of people here.”

    Her husband, Troy Ellis, participated in the “Walk of Unity” on the one-year anniversary of the Joplin tornado. He said he came to the reception because “Mark Rohr has done an awesome job serving Joplin. He will be missed. He was a great leader. We appreciate everything he’s done for Joplin, and I think we ought to stand behind people who do an awesome job for this town.”

    Goodbye

    COUNCILMAN GARY SHAW said the reception was held because “there’s an awful lot of people who thought an awful lot of Mark.” There were many, he said, who “just wanted to have an opportunity” to say goodbye.

    .

    All the shit unfit to print

    http://www.joplinglobe.com


  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    jewplin Missery
    Posts
    311

    Default

    City discloses emails; FBI correspondence among the items made public

    By Debby Woodin
    news@joplinglobe.com
    March 27, 2014


    http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/x19...ms-made-public
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...0392#post10392


    — Emails between Joplin’s city attorney and private investigator Tom Loraine show that the city attorney sent a draft of a contract for employment, scheduled city witnesses and set up a telephone hot line for the investigator.

    Correspondence seeking the disclosure of FBI reports regarding Councilman Bill Scearce also is disclosed.

    The Globe filed a request last week for emails between the attorneys. Those disclosed as a result of the Globe’s request under Missouri’s open records law show none directly between the special investigator and City Attorney Brian Head. The emails that were disclosed were directed to and received from Loraine paralegal Nancy J. Gazca.

    Loraine, of Osage Beach, was hired by the City Council to investigate ethical questions involving two council members, Scearce and Mike Woolston, and how a note in Mark Rohr’s handwriting came to be in Scearce’s possession. Loraine’s report on the investigation resulted in the firing of Rohr, the city manager, by a split vote of the council.

    The emails, which were sent from late October through December, were listed among the billings Loraine submitted to the city that totaled nearly $82,000. The city provided a copy of the itemized bill on March 5 after the Globe requested it under the Sunshine Law.

    Initial emails between Head and Gazca are dated Oct. 25 and concern an employment contract for Loraine’s services. Head sent a final proposed draft, and that was returned Oct. 28 with the investigator’s initials, “TEL,” written in the margins.

    The investigation directed Loraine to look into the involvement of Scearce with a convicted bookmaker, Kenneth Lovett. Scearce in the 1990s rented an office to Lovett where he conducted his bookmaking operation. Scearce was asked by the Globe if he knew Lovett was a bookmaker at the time he rented the office to him. Scearce at first told the Globe that he did not know about the gambling operation, but, after the council authorized the probe, he called the Globe to say that he wanted to clarify that he did find out about the bookmaking operation after Lovett moved into the office.

    The Globe had filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the FBI in September 2012 for a copy of the investigative reports regarding a public corruption and gambling probe that resulted in Lovett’s indictment. To date, the Globe has not received those documents.

    On Nov. 11, Head was sent a copy of a brief letter the Loraine firm sent to the FBI’s chief division counsel in Kansas City requesting a meeting to obtain information “regarding the involvement and conviction of Mr. Kenny Levitt and the possible involvement of Alderman William Scearce.” Head sent an email back correcting the name from Levitt to Lovett.

    Head filed a Freedom of Information Act request on Nov. 18, which the council had directed at an earlier meeting.

    “Approximately one year ago, the Joplin Globe, the local newspaper in Joplin, Missouri, made a request related to an investigation or interview of Mr. William Scearce Sr.,” Head’s request reads in part. “We restate their request and ask that any documents provided to the Joplin Globe also be provided to the city of Joplin, Missouri.”

    In Loraine’s final report, he said the chief counsel of the FBI said he did not believe there was still an open investigation regarding the gambling. Head’s open records request could be expedited only by filing a lawsuit or by Scearce filing a waiver for disclosure.

    Scearce’s attorney filed that waiver, Loraine reported. Loraine said in his report that his scrutiny essentially cleared Scearce of any wrongdoing.

    Lawsuit

    NINE PAGES of Tom Loraine’s report to the Joplin City Council were withheld by the city, with officials characterizing them as having become a part of Mark Rohr’s personnel record. The Globe has filed a lawsuit seeking release of the nine pages on grounds that they are a public record. A hearing on the suit is slated for Monday in Jasper County Circuit Court.


    All the shit unfit to print

    http://www.joplinglobe.com


  9. #19
    Cousin Randy Turner's Avatar
    Cousin Randy Turner is offline gliberal whigger butthole fag Veteran Member Cousin Randy Turner has a little shameless behaviour in the past
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    In a skrule next to jew, Missery
    Posts
    492

    Default About the Joplin Globe, Mark Rohr, and the Joplin Police

    About the Joplin Globe, Mark Rohr, and the Joplin Police


    http://rturner229.blogspot.com/2014/...nd-joplin.html
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...0399#post10399


    .

    In its March 16 edition, the Joplin Globe revealed that part of the investigation that resulted in the firing of City Manager Mark Rohr centered on a 911 call and domestic dispute that took place at Rohr's home on December 29, 2012.

    The police investigated, determined that no crime had been committed, and closed the investigation.

    Nearly two weeks have passed and nothing more has been written about this in the area's newspaper of record, yet the Globe article leaves many questions unanswered and many more unasked.

    - When did the Joplin Globe first know about the 911 call and the police visit to Rohr's house? It stands to reason Globe editors and reporters knew about this long before March 16, and frequent Globe guest columnist Anson Burlingame recently wrote on his blog that Editor Carol Stark was already aware of the incident. When did she know and why was nothing ever written about it in the pages of the Globe? A 911 call from the home of the City Manager would seem to be a newsworthy event, even if the news was just dispelling rumors. At this time, it was already well known that Rohr's time at Piqua, Ohio, ended with him filing a libel suit against someone who had said that the police had made a number of visits to his house on domestic incident reports. Rohr won the lawsuit, but if nothing else, the coincidence should have made the Globe take a closer look into the Joplin incident.

    - Why did the Joplin Police not call in an outside agency to investigate the situation? When the person who is being investigated is the man who hires and fires the police chief, there would seem to be a conflict of interest. Usually in this type of case, the Missouri Highway Patrol is called in, even when the matter seems to be routine. There is no indicating in the March 16 story that the Globe even asked Joplin Police Chief Lane Roberts that question.

    - Why did Roberts refuse to sit down with investigator Tom Loraine for an interview? He turned over the tape of the 911 call and the police report, but he did nothing to dispel the rumors that there was a cover up.

    - Though Missouri law leaves the matter to the police officers' discretion, some states require that at least one of the parties in a domestic abuse situation be removed from the location as a precaution. What is the Joplin Police Department's policy and was it followed on December 29, 2012 or was preferential treatment provided to Mark Rohr?

    - Do Joplin Globe Editor Carol Stark and Publisher Michael Beatty provide preferential treatment to their friends?
    .

    The answer to the last question is obvious.


    Posted by Randy at 7:49 AM Friday, March 28. 2014


    ___666___666___666___



    The Turner Diaries RULES, The Turner Report drools


  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    jewplin Missery
    Posts
    311

    Default Judge orders city of Joplin to make report public

    Judge orders city of Joplin to make report public

    By Debby Woodin
    news@joplinglobe.com
    March 31, 2014


    http://www.joplinglobe.com/topstorie...-report-public
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...0413#post10413


    Judge David Mouton responds to rebuttal from Karl Blanchard,
    outside counsel for the City of Joplin, at the Jasper County
    courthouse concerning the Joplin Globe's request for an open
    records disclosure on Monday, March 31.

    .

    JOPLIN, Mo. — A Jasper County circuit judge on Monday said he would issue a writ sought by The Joplin Globe and its parent company, Community Newspaper Holdings Inc., ordering public disclosure of a report the city has withheld regarding the former city manager along with its exhibits and testimony.

    The Globe’s publisher, Mike Beatty, placed the significance of the ruling on the importance of the documents to the public.

    “I think getting the document is not as important to the Globe as it is important for our community,” he said. “Joplin residents deserve to know what is happening in our city government with full disclosure, particularly now during Joplin’s redevelopment.”

    Chuck Buchanan, the Globe’s attorney, said of the procedure that will follow Monday’s decision: “The judge will order disclosure and will set a deadline for disclosure. And then the city will decide what action they want to take by the time that deadline arises. At this time, we don’t know whether the documents will be available immediately or whether there will be a long delay if the city decides to appeal.” The case was heard by Judge David Mouton in Joplin.

    City Attorney Brian Head said he does not agree with the judge’s decision, but it will be the City Council’s decision whether to appeal.

    “We don’t have the written decision, so it’s a little hard to know the court’s reasoning” for the decision, Head said. He said he believes the ruling “misapplies the law to the facts as they exist. We will have a meeting of the council within the next few days for the council to determine if it wishes to appeal. It will be my recommendation that the council appeal this decision.”

    Asked why he believes the law was misapplied, Head said: “All I know is the result. I don’t know if all the reasoning is correct. Once I see that, I’ll know specifically.” Asked if the council will hold the discussion on whether to appeal in an open meeting, Head said, “No, we don’t discuss litigation strategy in an open meeting.”

    The Globe sought a writ ordering the city to release a portion of a City Council investigation report about Mark Rohr, who was fired as city manager Feb. 4 after the report was given to the council. The council held an open meeting but went into closed session to hear the entire report. The council reconvened in open session, where part of the report was read by the special investigator, attorney Tom Loraine. After that, a motion was made to fire Rohr without cause, and the motion carried by a vote of 5-4.

    The investigation, authorized by the City Council, was to focus on the ethical conduct of two council members, Bill Scearce and Mike Woolston. Instead, its focus turned to Rohr.

    A portion of the report dealing with the two councilmen was released, but the city has withheld the part about Rohr and has denied access to some exhibits of the report and to testimony taken in the investigation. The city contends that the Rohr report is a personnel record that is closed to the public because it contains information regarding his job performance.

    But the council’s contract with the investigator specified that the report was to be open to the public. Instead, pages related to Rohr were withdrawn from the finished version of the report.

    At Monday’s hearing, Buchanan told the judge that it is “important to note this was an afterthought on the city’s part. It’s clear from the contract, and the (meeting) agenda that said nothing about personnel records.” The agenda of the Feb. 4 meeting shows that the council met in closed session under an exemption in the Sunshine Law for discussion of litigation, not for personnel decisions. Buchanan noted that there had been an effort by some members of the council after an Aug. 5 meeting to seek Rohr’s resignation, but there was a glitch when they learned that the vote had to be publicly disclosed.

    The city’s outside counsel, Karl Blanchard, told the judge: “The issue is: Are they exempt or closed? Does this have to do with the job performance of a city employee? If they do, they’re exempt.”

    The judge asked Blanchard: “Do you agree with the proposition that if a public meeting is closed under a certain exception to the Sunshine Law, that for example, that litigation and only litigation is discussed? And when litigation is the subject of that closed meeting is completed that you go back into open session?”

    Blanchard: “Judge, that is not an issue that has been raised by the writ. I haven’t taken a look at it.”

    Judge: “But it’s before me. You’re taking the position, as I understand it, that these records are closed because they are a personnel record, but it appears from your exhibit No. 10, as indicated by Mr. Buchanan, that the meeting was closed for litigation and not for hiring, firing, disciplining or promoting a particular employee.”

    Blanchard: “I thought it was closed to see Loraine’s report.”

    Judge: “Right. Under 610.021.1 (a section of the open records law), which is legal actions, causes of action, not personnel records.”

    Blanchard said he would have to research whether other procedures have to be followed if a meeting moves from one exemption to another.

    The attorneys asked to file written legal conclusions for the judge to consider.

    The judge said they could, but he was ready to rule.

    “I am not convinced that the records requested fall within any exception under the Sunshine Law,” Mouton said. “And it’s not just the case law. The Sunshine Law says itself that the exceptions are to be narrowly construed, and I don’t find that these records fall within any exception.”

    Mouton said that while he understands that the city wants to protect itself from a possible claim for wrongfully disclosing personal employee information, “I don’t know that a public entity can say that something is exempt under an exception that wasn’t claimed at the time they discussed it.”

    Final order

    CIRCUIT JUDGE DAVID MOUTON said he will prepare a final order requiring disclosure of the documents.

    .



    Will Peterson (left) and Charles Buchanan, attorneys representing the
    Joplin Globe, discuss their case concerning the Joplin Globe's request
    for an open records disclosure from the City of Joplin at Jasper County
    circuit court on Monday, March 31


    All the shit unfit to print

    http://www.joplinglobe.com


+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts