So much for the Times-Picayune’s effort to revirginate Jefferson Parish Council President John Young. Good Government’s Margie Seemann took the gloss off the T-P’ attempt to paint the Parish Council out of the picture of corruption framing the River Birch contract with her response to Parish Attorney Peggy Barton’s that-law-is-just-a-suggestion-letter.
After reviewing the provisions of Jefferson Parish Code of Ordinances Section 2-895, the evaluation committee for RFP 176 should have included a representative from the Purchasing Department. However, the fact that there was no such representative on the committee would not in and of itself be grounds to make the subsequent contract, which resulted from the RFP process, illegal or invalid.
I call bullshit. Ms. Seemann, on the other hand, simply called Barton out point-by-point in her September 15th reply to Barton:
In your response to me, you said, “It should be noted that the evaluation committee does not award any contracts; it merely advises the Jefferson Parish Council, which is then free to award as it deems best for Jefferson Parish, regardless of what the committee recommends.”
Since the evaluation committee did not have the members required by the Code of Ordinances, the Jefferson Parish Council did not receive the advice which is legally required in order for them to make a decision on the award of the River Birch landfill contract. The Code of Ordinances specifically requires the following members: representative(s) from the requesting department(s), research and budget, purchasing department and legal. Because the purchasing department was not represented and the director of the requesting department, the Department of Environmental Affairs, was not even a voting member of the committee, all of the required members were not on the committee. The Jefferson Parish Code of Ordinances was therefore violated, and the advice of the evaluation committee was therefore null and void. After all, Sec. 1-10 of the Code states: “It shall be unlawful for any person to violate or fail to comply with any provision of this Code.” We strongly disagree with your contention that the Parish Council is free to award a contract without the legally required advice.
Point!
You said, “An advisory committee is just that; it provides advice to another body which is then free to follow or ignore those recommendations.”
However, since the advisory committee did not have the required members, the advice given to the Jefferson Parish Council was inadequate and not valid, and the award of the contract was therefore illegal.
Point!
You said, “It should also be noted that, unless there is a specific prohibition, governmental bodies may waive informalities in the process of awarding contracts and it does not render the subsequent contract invalid.”
Are you saying that the illegally-constituted evaluation committee was merely an “informality,” which may be waived in the process of awarding contracts, even though it violates our government’s own laws as specified in the Code of Ordinances? Since when does our government or the Jefferson Parish Council have a right to violate the Code of Ordinances? The citizens of Jefferson are not permitted to violate our laws as specified in our Code of Ordinances and neither is our government.
Point!
You said, “Similarly, the Public Bid Law does not apply to the RFP in question…”
We have never contended that the Public Bid Law applied to the River Birch landfill contract. It clearly does not apply. To the contrary, we have contended that Sec. 2-895, Request for Proposal (RFP) Process, applies to RFP 176, and that its provision in paragraph (5) entitled “Evaluation” was violated.
Point!
You said, “As can be seen from the attached letter from the RFP evaluation committee, the composition of the committee was disclosed to the Council before they voted on the matter. Any inconsistency in the make up of the committee would have been cured by the Council action both because they are the only authority empowered to act on awarding a contract, and also because the Parish did reserve in the RFP the right to waive informalities.”
Are you saying that the Council has the authority to act on the advice of an illegally-constituted committee and therefore has the authority to condone the unlawful action of our government when they violate the Code of Ordinances? If so, then the Code of Ordinances is a meaningless document which our government can violate at will. We strongly disagree with your contention that the Council can “cure” an illegal action by merely accepting it.
Point!
You said, “The Environmental Department was actively involved with the committee, although not in a voting capacity.”
Why was the director of the Environmental Department, Marnie Winter, not a voting member of the evaluation committee? After all, she was required to be a member of this committee by the Code of Ordinances, since she is the director of the requesting department. This purposeful exclusion of her as a voting member of the committee is very troubling and is another important reason to invalidate the advice of the evaluation committee. We believe that the intentional exclusion of Ms. Winter as a voting member of the evaluation committee is a serious offense which demands further investigation.
Point!
You said, “Because the same committee composition reviewed both offers, all offerors received the same treatment in this RFP, even though Purchasing was not on the committee, and the Environmental Department did not have a voting capacity. Thus, under the Code provision cited above, the departure from normal practice was permitted.”
Whether or not all offerors received the same treatment in this RFP is irrelevant. The expertise required on this committee by the Code of Ordinances did not exist.
Point!
You said, “Additionally, it should be noted that, even assuming that Purchasing and the Environmental Department should have been voting members of the committee, the members who actually scored the proposals did constitute a quorum, and thus the scoring they gave was acceptable. The Code sections establishing the RFP process are silent as to a quorum. However, when there is nothing specific in the rules established for a governmental body, reference is made to Roberts Rules of Order…”
As you point out, there was no reference to a quorum in the RFP process. However, whether or not there would have been a quorum if the required members had been included in the committee is irrelevant, since the required expertise of the missing members did not exist on the committee, and the committee was therefore an illegally-constituted body.
Point!
You said, “For the reasons cited above, it is the opinion of this office that, even though the composition of the RFP evaluation committee may have been flawed, that reason standing alone is not sufficient grounds to nullify the subsequently awarded contract.”
The composition of the RFP evaluation committee was not just “flawed,” but it was unlawful, since it violated the Code of Ordinances. Furthermore, according to Sec. 1-10 of the Code of Ordinances, where no specific penalty is provided, as in this case, “the violation of any provision of this Code shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500.00) or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six (6) months or by both such fine and imprisonment, within the discretion of the court.” Hence, violating the Code of Ordinances is NOT a trivial offense which can be “cured” by the Council overlooking the illegal act.
Point!
We therefore disagree with your opinion that the River Birch landfill contract is legal. After all, as we have previously stated many times–the composition of the RFP evaluation committee violated the Parish Code of Ordinances. Since this committee was therefore an illegally constituted body, the committee evaluation that favored River Birch is necessarily null and void. We do not believe that the Jefferson Parish Council has the authority to overlook the fact that the committee evaluation was illegal, since they too are required to abide by ALL provisions of the Code of Ordinances, and any violation is punishable by significant penalties. We therefore can come to no other conclusion than the River Birch landfill contract is illegal and should be cancelled.(emphasis added)
In the event that anyone believes that it was merely an oversight or an accidental omission by our Parish government NOT to include the Director of the Environmental Affairs Department and a representative from the Purchasing Department on the Evaluation Committee, as required by the Code of Ordinances, we refer everyone to a recently-obtained copy of a legal document filed by Waste Management, which currently operates our Parish-owned Landfill. This document, “Waste Management’s First Amended and Supplemental Counterclaim” references sworn testimony from Margaret Winter, Director of the Jefferson Parish Environmental Affairs Department, Joseph “Rick” Buller, Jefferson Parish Landfill Engineer, Gwen Bolotte, Director of the Jefferson Parish Finance Department, and Deano Bonano, a former Chief Administrative Assistant and former emergency management director of Jefferson Parish.
We consider the sworn depositions of these individuals to be devastating with respect to ex-Parish President Aaron Broussard, ex-CAO Tim Whitmer, and ex-Parish Attorney Tom Wilkinson, as well as to the validity of the River Birch Landfill contract. Anyone who is interested can read this entire document, which was made available on the Slabbed website at http://www.slabbed.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/parish-v-waste-management-doc-104.pdf.
The information provided in Waste Management’s document corrobates our contention that the Director of the Environmental Affairs Department, which prepared the draft Request for Proposal for the disposal of “woody waste,” and a representative of the Purchasing Department were deliberately excluded from the Evaluation Committee. This was among the reasons given by Waste Management in their counterclaim document for “declaring the River Birch contract itself invalid.”
Ignorance of the law is no excuse – not for the Parish Council, including John Young, and definitely not for the Parish Attorney.
Ms. Barton should resign!
Definitely NOT a case of “mere negligence” as the T-P is attempting to push (as if that were not damning enough).
It IS a case of COLLUSION that is blatantly UNLAWFUL and ALL of current members of the council (save the “place holder”) as well as past and current members of the administrations are participants.
God Bless Margie Seemann!
May I suggest a name for our next Parish President!
For being senior citizens they sure make fools out of the administration and Council’s boys and girls and always cut to the honest meat of questions and expose ALL the FRAUD and COLLUSION every time.
Better give up while you boys and girls still have positions because the senior ladies aren’t going away any time soon.
Holy Cow, the whole process was illegal making the contract invalid ab initio? {Did I say that correctly?}
That Barton letter is dated 9/14/10.
I say re-submit it to the new Parish Attorney.
And see what she says.
**********************************
But that is one lousey letter. Did she really cut and paste an email into the middle of a response letter on something that heavy? Let’s see the rest of the email and all the related emails. The Birchers ought to be pretty ticked if this is the quality of merde sausage being put out on their behalf.
Aside from sheer sloppiness and all around mediocrity, and the fact that this thing never should have been written from a Bircher point of view, just for starters Sec. 2-895(5) is extremely clear: “Proposals received ****are evaluated by an evaluation committee, consisting of representative(s) from the requesting department(s), research and budget, ***purchasing department and legal. ”
That “are” is equivalent to “shall” – that is not a formaility, it’s a REQUIREMENT.
The case Barton cites deals with SHAREHOLDERS and a corporate sale, not a governmental entity.
By the way what is an “informality” as opposed to a “formality?
This Barton letter reads like epic fail.
The M & M sisters ARE INDEED DIVINE .
If memory serves there are emails and letters at the time of the finaglings with the Garbage stuff which emails and letters clearly nail Peggy Olsen Barton with knowledge of the corrupt illegal behavior of her superior(s) and some I believe which show she had a hand in crafting the entire mess.
Clearly between her active involvement in concealing aspects of the Paralegal Corruption , her tampering with Public Records to conceal her direct supervision of the Paralegals in question, and her continued interference with ongoing criminal investigations, she needs not only to resign but to be prosecuted with Broussard, Whitmer and Wilkinson.
Her continued presence in Jefferson Parish government sends the WRONG MESSAGE to the public and especially to those citizens John Young is trying to impress with his illusional transparency and honesty.
Fire her now. Prosecute her to the fullest. IMHO.
Tele:
I get the impression you know damn well what an initio means and exactly how to use it. And yes, you used it right . . . but you already knew that.
BTW, Nowdy, I neglected to give props on a great post.
A couple other thoughts:
Sec. 2-891: “There is hereby established a ***uniform set of procedures for the purchase of labor, materials, supplies, equipment, services and public works by the purchasing department for all departments of the parish as provided in this division.”
The proceedures set out are intended to be “uniform”, i.e. not dismissed or varied at the reviewing committee’s whim.
Secondly, it is not enough to say that the reviewing committee may accept or reject what they receive; they do not have authority to accept or reject ANYTHING, i.e. to enter the process, if the proposal itself was invalidly arrived at.
The distinction between public works and services seems bizarre – Sec. 2-895 refers to “services”; Sec. 2-891 refers to “services.” That is what M&M are applying here.
The reliance on Sec. 2-895(5) re: Evaluation is totally deceptive, in full it states: “Evaluation criteria: The proposed evaluation criteria shall be looked upon as standards which measure how well an offeror’s approach meets desired performance requirements, and which permit an evaluation of the differences between desired performance characteristics and what the offeror proposes to do. A scoring system must be devised and impartially applied to each proposal. Any departure from the established plan which is prompted by factors outside the system is permitted only insofar as the same treatment is extended impartially to all offerors. The step-by-step evaluation and scoring procedures which are to be followed to assure objectivity and thoroughness in comparative analysis of the proposals shall be described in the RFP.” – This departure language refers to variance from the scoring system and the criteria, ***not the makeup of the evaluation committee.
Now look at the original report:
http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/12/company_says_trash_deal_could.html
“””River Birch saw its chance to offer the landmark deal through a minor, almost throw-away idea by Parish President Aaron Broussard’s administration: Find a contractor to dispose of the parish’s “woody” waste.
The parameters of the work are ****open to interpretation, and Chief Administrative Officer Tim Whitmer has *****called the contract search a “fishing expedition.” Yet River Birch found an opening it has sought for five years, Heebe said.
This fall, Broussard’s administration asked for proposals to dispose of yard waste, tree limbs and other natural debris. Bidders also could offer new destinations for other trash headed to the landfill.
Parish Attorney Tom Wilkinson said the administration did not draft the proposal request with River Birch’s comprehensive offer in mind.<<<
Basically you have an admission from the Parish itself at the time that the proposal was designed to limit those who applied to those thinking they would just be applying for woody waste and other extraneous services – and meanwhile the Birchers came in with a unique offer that no one would be prepared to counter. What you had was a literal rigging of the process – designed to keep unwanted proposals out while keeping those competitors who met the literal requirements unable to compete with what was actually on the table.
Sec. 2-895(2): "The RFP shall include a description of the item or services to be purchased, called statement of work or scope of service, the *****specific criteria that will be used to evaluate the proposals, the closing time and date after which proposals will not be accepted, and other information such as delivery dates or time frames within which the work must be completed, and general and special terms and conditions. Such purchases may call for nonstandard items or complex services."
Although given any type of service for which bids are sought the criteria may be somwhat flexible, under this section the description of the services are NOT flexible and may not vary. In other words, the writers of the bid may not seek a proposal for one thing and come out buying another.
“ab initio” Stupid lack of typing skills.
Were not the writers of the bid: Baby Butler , Heebe and Michael Peytavin while perched at a coffee shop in Old Metairie? Didn’t I read that somewhere? Royal Blend or PJ’s by Langenstein’s? Someone said they were at the next table and heard the entire plot unfold and be taken down for posterity.
As most of you know I have written extensively regarding the Wilkinson- in- Drag miscreant… Peggy Barton. Refer to these links:
http://slabbed.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/peggy-barton-tom-wilkinsons-continuing-legacy-of-arrogance-and-incompetence-to-further-facilitate-corruption-part-i-a-guest-post-by-whitmergate/
http://slabbed.wordpress.com/2010/10/01/peggy-barton-wilkinsons-continuing-legacy-of-arrogance-and-incompetence-to-further-facilitate-corruption-part-ii-council-votes-in-violation-of-jefferson-parish-code-of-ordinance-23-132-1-a-guest/
One might think that there is nothing else to write about her, but alas, that would be premature. The question we all need to ask Connick’s punk Young is: 1) Why did you appoint her interim Parish Attorney ? You could not have known that she was united at the hips with that scum bag Wilkinson whom she was under for at least 14 years ! She was in fact his FirstDeputy Asst. in charge of supervising both the Asst PAs and the para-legal Dept. as well.and, 2) why have you continued to retain Barton in the Parish Attorney’s Office knowing full well she is a principal participant co-conspirator, along with her former boss Wilkinson, in a massive payroll fraud conspiracy involving both non-elector Asst. PAs, together with non existent and non-qualified para-legals. Payroll fraud that will account for in the MILLIONS OF DOLLARS !
Young before you answer these questions, consider that we all know you were sitting at the Council Circus meetings as Councilman-at Large with your former clown colleagues. Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were conscious at these fiascos, you certainly were privy to the dog and pony show put on by Whitmer and Wilkinson, along with Wilkinson’s lap dog Barton, at every stage of the River Birch conspiracy to award an illegal landfill monopoly. In fact the record evidences your vote being part of the 7-0 majority every time River Birch needed an ally.
Could it be that Peggy Barton is so entwined in the River Birch conspiracy, as it appears you may be, that you will not cut your co-conspirator loose no matter what. That you know your master DA Connick will not prosecute any of y’all and that your newly appointed COO is the gatekeeper with the US Atty Letten.
Go public with your answers to my questions…call Mr. Rainey over at the TP, he’s always interested in reporting a good story…
Unslabbed, I had “bid” on my mind. Why did the Parish use an “RFP” process instead of issuing a request for bids?
I noted your use the term “bid specs” vs “scope of work”.
In either case, the award was made “ultra vires”; i.e., “beyond powers” and “void ab initio”; i.e., “void from the start” – nonetheless, the choice of process is a puzzle.
(and, thanks for the compliment Sock)
Don’t know if you saw this but everyone is saying cancel the River Birch contract. If the Council tries to cancel the contract it will mean more lawsuits and cost taxpayers more money. I don’t want to keep pushing him, but I think Walt’s got a good idea here. What does everyone else think?
I didn’t know River Birch continues to send $100k a year to Waggaman. At least they are stepping up and, since it wasn’t common knowledge, they’re not doing it for the publicity.
http://www.clickjefferson.com/npps/story.cfm?ID=2668
I read it, Michael. Thought I was hallucinating!
This is not a playground squabble that can be settled by holding hands and playing nice.
Unless the “woody waste” from Katrina has not been picked up, there’s nothing to rebid and no point in starting over because it’s over – the contract wasn’t lawfully awarded and picking up that related “garbage” is the job of USA Letten.
Nonetheless, I remain a fan of clickjefferson.com.
Nowdy, I agree.
Michael, you need to come clean (pun intended) – no stealth posting. On the one hand elsewhere you’re typing furiously to defend Cindy Lee and her backhanded selfdealing ways, and those of pals Coulon & Co., in Fat City and here of course you’re advocating the bygones (let’s forget the hand slammed in the till) approach for the Birchers. How consistent.
Walt, loveyaman, but you might have under-reached here. There have been times in the past when you played it too soft, this might be one of them.
Michael,
Where was your concern about the Parish (JP taxpayers) paying damages and attorneys’ fees when Wilkinson advised the Council to prematurely and unlawfully breach Waste Management’s contract ?
I can tell you this, if Jefferson Parish had real leadership, and I were Parish President…I would have my Parish Attorney sue Whitmer, Wilkinson, Broussard, Fos, Gandolfi, River Birch, Heebe, Ward, Sneed, Peytavin, all members of the Parish Council, and anyone else who was a proponent of this criminal conspiracy to award an illegal landfill monopoly, to recover any and all monies that Jefferson Parish has paid, is obligated to pay now, and may be liable for in the future. Trust me, JP WILL recover those monies as a result of this collusion of RICO activity.
I would also demand that DA Connick prosecute all of the individuals listed above. And further demand that he send this information on to Washington DC for consideration of having a Special Task Force be sent down here in JP and clean house of these JP politico mafioso !
Your bogeyman comment is telling…we’re not stupid here at the SlabbedNation…peddle that BS on NOLA…
Sorry some disagree.
Here’s the main point that I was trying to convey: WM and the Parish are already involved in litigation. We can’t undo that. If the Parish cancels the River Birch contract, River Birch will surely sue the Parish. If however, we could convince River Birch to do the right thing and agree to start the process over, with a new RFP, more input and public comment, less corrupt individuals involved in the process, etc. we would avoid more litigation and get a better deal for the Parish (if it can be shown that River Birch is in fact better than the current Parish dump).
I’m not drinking the River Birch “Kool-Aid”. I want them to prove that they’re better. I think they should step up and do the right thing.
The Feds will take action against Whitmer for his part in River Birch and other deals. I agree that the Parish should take whatever action it can against other parties involved. Everyone is clamboring for the Parish to cancel the River Birch contract. While I agree that the contract is tainted, if the Parish cancels the contract, we’ll have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. How is that good for us? If River Birch does the right thing and would agree to cancel the contract and start the process over, it could be a win-win for everyone.
Sorry if that’s “soft”.
Walt the process was tainted from the beginning with a fix. While I understand the point your making it also would reward some very sleazy behavior.
If the goal is to save the taxpayers money then a wide open RFP that includes both pirvate operation of the Parish’s landfill and River Birch accomplishes that, not an exclusive negotiation.
sop
sop81_1 – Agreed the process was tainted and I said that there should be a new RFP. I’m not for rewarding River Birch. I am against more lawsuits. River Birch should be required to make the case that their deal is better for the citizens and, if there’s a better option, the Parish should choose the best option. Regardless, the River Birch landfill will continue, with or without JP waste.
River Birch is there to stay of that there is no doubt. At this point I only see one lawsuit, the one where Waste Management is kicking hiney and a potential one involving River Birch. I’d settle the one that should never have been filed and take my chances on Team Heebe if they don’t want to play nice.
sop
Not “soft”, Walt – just “penny wise and pound foolish”.
Canceling the contract under the circumstances shouldn’t result in a lawsuit. Under well-established contract law, there is no contract – “void ab initio” – it didn’t happen.
Waste Management has opened up its can of legal whup ass on River Birch and it’s going to be extremely difficult to close that can. They have been made the subject of numerous investigations and prosecutions over their history of opening and operating landfills, so they have lots of experience at this game. They will meticulously discover the facts behind the deal(s), and then lay it bare for all to see.
Walt:
I certainly don’t understand your analysis, but if you’re saying what I think you’re saying, I think it’s “soft” and a bit delusional.
The contract was a legal nullity from the outset. And if it is not clear to everyone that River Bitch and the council members engaged in what I’ll kindly call “unethical” behavior in the formulation, voting, and execution of this so-called “contract,” then you just refuse to acknowledge the patently obvious. So what you essentially suggest is this: let’s let a company that rigged the process in collusion with the “lawmakers” (and I use that term in a mocking sense) who unanimously passed it while they were all getting campaign contributions (and insurance commissions in the Whitmers’ case) from the incestuous company seeking to benefit from this contract by tens of millions of dollars, have a fresh start. I guess I’ll add that all of this is under a Federal microscope.
So you suggest that the cheater be rewarded with a “do-over” with the majority of the council members being the ones who voted the initial contract through from the outset. What you call “tainted,” I prefer to call blatant cheating (and maybe soon it will be called criminal). Where you see shadows, I see ghosts of the worst sort.
So, if you remove the “River Birch deals”, was there any legitimate reason for issuing the RFP or would the WM contract continued uninterrupted and, if so, does the need remain?
Unless there was such a reason, I see no justification for rebidding the contract.
I’ve never defended Sheng. She’s as dirty as everyone. I don’t know what you’re talking about. Bogeyman? Again, what are you talking about?
Michael if I have you confused with another “Mike” I was contemplating I greatly apologize.
A much easier solution is a simple Parish tax or road mitigation tax for the heavy trucks and road repairs in and out of the dumps.
How about 2 dollars a ton of dumped Garbage to help defer the cost of litigation?
It would add incentive to look at recycling and fund any litigation or settlements due form this corruption laden litigation.
The case docs I posted last week on the allude to other activity on the docket I did not post. The bottom line is Waste Mangement is asking for some very specific relief including Judge Lemelle tossing the River Birch contract.
sop
Oh! Lemelle is involved in the Waste Management litigation? Well that injects a “wild card” into the deck which I aver CANNOT be good for “truth, justice and the American way”. I have said about the incompetent charletan Lemelle: “No white man as lazy, stupid and corrupt as Lemelle could EVER have been confirmed as a Federal Judge.” But then what do I know? G.T. Ortous, like Lemelle, made the cut. If any of the readers of SLABBED wish to see evidence of Lemelle’s judicial misconduct read the Fifth Circuit opinion in “In re High Sulphur Content Products Liability Litigation, 517 F.3d 220 (5th Cir. 2008), or my Memorandum in Support of my Motion for Recusal of Lemelle in my suspension proceedings, Civil Action No. 08-1492. Professor Dane Ciolino represented the prevailing parties in the “High Sulphur Content Gasoline ” case. Counsel in the “Petronius Platform” case, a fairly recent admiralty and maritime litigation, may be willing to comment on Lemelle’s ethics, work ethic and intellect. This is a Federal Judge who is where he is today SOLELY by virtue of his skin color. Ashton O’Dwyer a/k/a “The WHITE Henry Glover”.
If the good Lord has a sense of humor, Ashton, he’s going to give you a second life and send you back “black” with a Chinese wife!
Nowdy: The cruel irony here, which technically is irrelevant to the Waste Management litigation, or to what ultimately happens in Jefferson Parish, whose Council PANDERED to River Birch, for “whatever” reasons, is that Lemelle’s judicial misconduct, as documented by me, goes UNPUNISHED. His conduct pales in significance to what I was “accused” of doing in my suspension and disbarment proceedings, based largely on LIES told by Duval-GDaley-Fayard and his wife/law clerk, which Ginger Berrigan, Lemelle and Sarah Vance never bothered to check and verify. SLABBED should “WATCH” this son-of-a-bitch Lemelle because he is lazy, stupid and corrupt. Ashton O’Dwyer a/k/a “The WHITE Henry Glover”.
Much better said Ashton.
sop
After reading ‘Gate’s questions to John Young and reading Ms. Barton’s letter defending the River Birch contract it should be self evident that Ms. Barton’s services are being retained, despite her highly questionable supervisory activities, by Young solely as a publicly subsidized defender for the Birchers’ legal interests.
Therefore, I would encourage President Young to play fair and appoint another parish attorney to specifically defend the Waste Disposal’s legal interests and then allow Ms. Forshee to represent the parish taxpayers’ best interests.
In such a fantasy legal horse race I’d put my money on the Forshee entry and predict a win ‘ ab initio ‘- from the start- as Barton gets quickly dismounted in the stall.
John Young sharpen your pencil and place your bet its post time.
To “CCC”: I’m not entirely sure what you’re suggesting, but if it’s anything like “building a Chinese wall” and allowing Ms. Foshee represent one interest, while another “Parish Attorney” represents another interest, THINK AGAIN. Debbie Foshee will do whatever John Young tells her to do, and her ethical and legal obligations to the client, whoever that might be, be DAMNED. I was a partner at Lemle & Kelleher (for over 35 years pre-KATRINA), when she worked there, for a while, in the “Casualty Section” , doing malpractice work. I never looked upon her as a “leader”, of men or women. Ashton O’Dwyer a/k/a “The WHITE Henry Glover”.
Have any of these types of issues EVER BEEN addressed PUBLICLY by the Council and/or the Parish President ? That this cost saving River Birch deal was in fact going to cost the Parish of Jefferson both in revenue and liability in damages and attorneys fees to Cytec/Renovar in the millions !
Here are some advance snippets that further gives credence that a lot of people were participating in this criminal conspiracy to award River Birch an illegal landfill monopoly:
July 27,2009
Buller to Wilkinson
Royalties for about one year are running at a pace of about $900,000 this year. Plus $300,000 for out of Parish commercial waste.
October 15,2009
Syd Ali email to Rick Buller re Cytec Industries Landfill gas
Cc Winter and Wilkinson
Talks about losses to Renovar and Cytec in the event of closure of the landfill. References River Birch
October 15, 2009
Buller to Peytavin, Winter and Wilkinson
Asking for meeting to discuss response to Cytec and Renovar concerns over depletion of available gas for sale from Jefferson Parish to them if landfill is closed