Future live chat events:
*Read archived chat here. New site location here.

Saturday, March 28, 2009

Updated: City's Closing Argument In Nuesse Case

Scroll down for update.

The city's closing argument is now posted on the Sandusky Register. Go hear and click on the appropriate video. (Still no permalinks.) It's a 40 minute argument - and Ms. Cannon must've covered the city's whole case because if they had any details they were leaving out or the city had an ace in their back pocket they would've shared it during the closing argument.

I'd really love to hear from the Nuesse haters on this. What's the case again?

1. She falsified Weed and Seed grant information? Based on interpretation.

2. She had a parking ticket voided? Completely debunked. There was absolutely no way Nuesse could've handled that situation in a more proper way short of simply paying the ticket which would've made her look paranoid after being told not to worry about it by Captain Frankowski, City Manager Mike Will (who was admittedly embarassed that the ticket was even issued) and Law Director Don Icsman. Everybody was aware of the ticket and nobody had a problem with how it was handled.

3. Failure to cooperate? He said, she said by a bunch of whiny males not used to being challenged. Look who Margaret Cannon says is so upset: Kevin Baxter and Terry Lyons. Consider the sources. (Cannon sneers: "But Randy Glovinski said it is standard procedure to tell the prosecutor and Sheriff when you're about to make arrests...")

4. Misled the commission?

Oh, Cannon says that Nuesse misled the commission during the executive session - not the public portion. Okay, let's ask the people present in the executive session: Kaman says that Nuesse never made statements to lead any of the commissioners to believe the dispatch system was "on the verge of collapse" - and Waddington said he doesn't recall Nuesse characterizing the dispatch system as "on the verge of collapse." But because Waddington wasn't willing to call Farrar, (who, admittedly, wasn't even present) Fuqua, Stahl, and Crandall liars for claiming that Nuesse did claim it was on the verge of collapse - Cannon relies on the possibility that Nuesse misled the commission - not on actual proof that she did. The possibility only exists if you're willing to call Dan Kaman a liar.

Don't know about you, but I'm having such a hard time accepting the possibility that Mrs. Bobblehead, Fuqua, Stahl and Crandall fibbed in concert to protect each other.

In the end, this case comes down to he said, she said. And I'm embarassed for Sandusky as it becomes painfully obvious that this is how our elected officials run the city.

The Question: After reviewing the evidence and listening to both sides, did the city convince you that Nuesse needed to be fired? (Million dollars well spent?)


Dan Kaman emails:

I will miss the live chat tonight. I stand by what I said from day one. I take pride in the fact that during my testimony Sue Porter said something like "so you expect us to believe you over 4 other commissioners who said Nuesse said dispatch was on the verge of collapse?" (or words to that effect) and I said YES. Proof is in the video and the minutes!


Anonymous said...

I can't believe this hearing allowed so much of the he said, she said. I was disappointed some of the important key players were not called to the hearing to testify. I kept hoping that Bailey would pull out another ace but it didn't happen. I would have liked to have seen the two FBI agents and the guy that handled the grant testify, but that didn't happen. Widman shouldn't have been allowed to be so evasive throughout his testimony. Nuesse had a lot of people lined up to testify and only half of them testified. The part that really gets to me is the sexual harassement was held back from the hearing which I thought had a bearing in all this. I have never seen a hearing quite like the Nuesse hearing. Documents were requested from the city and the city didn't hand them over or sounds like they were destroyed. What happened to the grant papers on Nuesse's desk? The whole hearing was weird. If I were on a jury for this, I would throw the whole thing out because it has no merit to trash someone's career over a parking ticket that wasn't filed with the court and grant documents that the city is still trying to sort out. If the city can't sort out the grant, how do you expect the jury to sort it out? Case closed.

Anonymous said...

Good point. The city is in such disarray how can they get anything straight? We spend our time and money on all the wrong things. No wonder they're over budget.

Anonymous said...

Now we see why executive sessions are so contrary to open government. There's no way to prove what's said during an executive session and that's why this commission requests an executive session for anything sensitive to the public.

Anonymous said...

Fact according to the Sunshine Law: Any other subject other then the subject called for in executive session is illegal to discuss in executive session. Does Don Icsman really monitor this closely and will any of the commissioners walk out of the meeting if they don't stick to the subject?

Anonymous said...

Of course, because integrity and open government is so important to Sandusky.

Anonymous said...

Sorry bout that. Meant to say:

Of course, because integrity and open government is so important to Sandusky city officials. [/sarcasm off]

Anonymous said...

Anyone wishing to download the newest edition of the 2009 Sunshine Law can go to www.ag.state.oh.us/legal/sunshine.asp Know your rights when it comes to the Sunshine Law. It is also illegal to destroy public records. Anything the city has documented becomes public record except for the stipulations that the Sunshine Law has provided.

Anonymous said...

Spinning says:

Why was the dispatch issue even discussed in executive session?

How does this topic even qualify for protection under the sunshine law?

Lastly, if the lawyer is diclosing the executive session conversations, why do commissioners keep secrets shared in those executive sessions designed to avoid sharing information wiht the voters?

Does anyone wonder if the casino motivation for the Marina District was also discussed in executive sessions among other inappropriate topics?

Perhaps Kaman and Wad may want to come clean about the inappropriate topics discussed in the secret sessions. Even Kaman and Wad can not have it both ways....and the truth needs to come out sooner than later!

Anonymous said...

This case turned out to be just as I suspected. Nothing more than a personal agenda of Kevin Baxter and Sheriff Lyons.

John Doe said...

I made the mistake of siding with the city when she was first fired and believing the garbage the city said. I became leary when the Murmon Report came out.

Since these hearings, I've made a 180 degree turn around and think the city was completely wrong and that Nuesse was fired for no good reason.

However, I'm afraid that ole' Judge C will find in favor of the city since he seems to be in the tank with them anyway. We'll see. I hope I'm wrong, but if I'm right, then what?

Anonymous said...

then it goes to the civil service commission.

Anonymous said...

The city might want to look into contacting the lawyer that went after Marc Dann. The concealment of records by the new Attorney General and the city is weird to say the least.

Anonymous said...

I meant the citizens or the SR might want to look into contacting the lawyer that went after Marc Dann.

Dan Kaman said...

Sorry I will miss the live chat tonight but...I stand by my testimony. Also, Casino was NEVER discussed in executive session.

bob zoellner said...

The way I see it.....

SHUT OUT, baby:

Nuesse 4
City of Sandusky 0

Anonymous said...

I agree that the Nuesse hearing was very weird but I find the AG's refusal to release the Baxter Report the weirdest of all. Are they protecting Baxter or somebody else?

Anonymous said...

Get rid of Baxter and the clown Kline and your city might stand a chance.