Archive for Thursday, November 8, 2007
Mayor fails to disclose Deciphera interest
Hack says not filing form was just a mistake; other questions about deal arise
November 8, 2007
Advertisement
Mayor Hack announces ties to Deciphera
More questions emerge today as the mayor announces her ties to a startup company that received a controversial economic incentives package. Enlarge video
Deciphera Pharmaceuticals
- Deciphera deal to be addressed to public (11-05-07)
- Probe sought over tax rebate (11-02-07)
- Deciphera looks to fast-track first drug (10-31-07)
- Bioscience firms taking root (11-01-07)
- City: Deciphera tax break not handled well (10-27-07)
- City, county may be responsible to pay $1.5M of company's grant even if it moves (10-27-07)
Lawrence Mayor Sue Hack conceded Thursday that she made a mistake by not completing documents disclosing that she has a financial interest in a company that is set to receive economic development incentives - including cash - from the city.
Hack said she did not file a "substantial interest form" - a state-mandated document - listing her stock holdings in Deciphera Pharmaceuticals. The company last month was approved to receive at least $3 million in economic development incentives from the city, county, state and economic development organizations in an effort to keep the promising startup company in Lawrence.
Hack said she was not trying to hide her interests from the public. Instead, she said she did not believe her interest in the company, which she has yet to state, required her to file the state form, which is kept on file at the Douglas County Clerk's office.
"It was just a mistake on my part," Hack said.
The mistake, though, has brought up other questions about Hack's involvement in the deal. Gwen Klingenberg, a member of Grassroots Action - a local political activism group - said the organization is concerned that Hack's financial interest in the company should have led her to abstain from any discussions regarding the deal. Hack abstained from last month's vote that approved the package, but she did participate in a closed-door executive session where commissioners were briefed on details of the proposed incentive deal.
Hack said she does not believe her participation in the executive session was improper. She said she did nothing in the executive session - or at any other time - to try to sway city commissioners to vote for the deal or to include provisions that would make the deal more attractive to Deciphera.
"Absolutely not," Hack said. "I didn't have anything to do with the contract. I don't think I probably indicated my position on the issues one way or another."
That point could become important because state law states no elected official shall "make or participate in the making of a contract" with any business that the elected official has a substantial interest in. The penalty for violating that portion of state law is serious: the elected official shall resign from office.
The district attorney is responsible for determining whether to file charges related to violations of that law, said Carol Williams, executive director of the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission.
Williams did not comment specifically on Hack's situation, but pointed to a 2003 opinion the Ethics Commission has issued on what constitutes "making or participating in the making of a contract." That opinion states participation is defined as "discussions and conversations with other council members regarding the options before the council."
It is not known exactly what topics were discussed in the executive session. Kansas law does not require minutes to be kept of executive sessions. But the Deciphera deal included several specific points on which someone had to provide direction. Included among those are provisions agreeing to give Deciphera cash payments when the company reaches certain job totals. Also, the contract contains details about a tax rebate program that allows Deciphera to receive a break on its property taxes without going through the typical tax abatement review process.
Neither of those items was discussed by commissioners as part of the Oct. 23 City Commission meeting where the contract was approved.
Klingenberg said the Grassroots Action group was researching whether to ask Branson to investigate whether Hack violated the conflict of interest statute.
Grassroots Action already has asked Branson to investigate whether the city violated the Kansas Open Meetings Act by conducting the closed-door executive session on the deal.
Branson is in the process of investigating that issue. The city on Wednesday was required to present Branson with a written response to the open meeting allegations. On Thursday, both the city and Branson declined to release that written response to the Journal-World.
The city said it was up to Branson to decide whether to release the document to the public, and Branson said he would not do so while the investigation was ongoing. He said to release the document now could taint any future investigative efforts - such as questioning additional people - that his office may take.
Branson said he is reviewing the city's response and soon will make a determination on whether to pursue a case alleging the city violated open meetings law.
Branson's office also would be responsible for determining whether Hack should be charged for not filing the substantial interest form - which is a class B misdemeanor under state law.
Hack said Thursday that her failure to file that form was simply a misunderstanding of the requirements of the law. She believed that the law only required her to list her ownership in companies that she had owned at least 5 percent of the company's stock.
But Williams, with the Governmental Ethics Commission, said the law requires elected officials to disclose any ownership interests that are greater than $5,000 in value. Hack said her interest in the company was greater than $5,000 but less than 5 percent of the company's total.
"It is not a major holding for us," Hack said of the investment, which also is in her husband's name.
Hack said she hoped members of the public would recognize that she has a history of abstaining from matters in which she has a financial interest. She has abstained from votes the commission has taken related to business dealings with CEK Insurance. Hack's husband is an officer and major shareholder of CEK Insurance.
"I understand that there are folks who question the actions of the commission, but I would hope that they understand they are dealing with five people who can be trusted," Hack said of herself and her fellow commissioners. "Nobody is in this for personal gain. The gain we want is the gain for the community."
Hack is not the only elected official who has a financial interest in the company. Douglas County Commissioner Bob Johnson has $8,200 worth of stock in Deciphera. But Johnson in May did file a substantial interest form disclosing those holdings, and made a public declaration of his financial interests during at least two County Commission meetings. He also abstained from the County Commission's vote on the Deciphera deal. He did not participate in any executive sessions on the Deciphera matter because the county did not have any such sessions, he said.
More like this
- AG's office sent more Deciphera allegations 32 comments / December 28, 2007
- Mayor, county commissioner face more Deciphera allegations 76 comments / December 19, 2007
- Commission admits to violation 81 comments / December 5, 2007
- AG won't prosecute mayor 80 comments / November 20, 2007
- Probe sought over tax rebate 35 comments / November 2, 2007
Top ads RSS
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- One dead after car-motorcycle accident near 27th and Missouri November 27, 2009 · 22 comments
- Obama to promise 17% cuts in U.S. emissions in next decade November 26, 2009 · 69 comments
- Turbine manufacturer passes on Lawrence site November 24, 2009 · 115 comments
- Blog: How Has Obama's Stimulus Helped You? November 21, 2009 · 101 comments
- Anger control November 27, 2009 · 24 comments
- 3-step approach to health care reform November 27, 2009 · 22 comments
- Letter claims bad conditions at juvenile facility November 27, 2009 · 19 comments
- Kansas Athletics seeks football fans to invest $34M for Gridiron Club November 27, 2009 · 38 comments
- Fear tactics November 27, 2009 · 27 comments
- The Oread Hotel targets concerns over fire November 27, 2009 · 28 comments
- Atomic veterans gaining recognition March 28, 2009
- Message warns students at Perry-Lecompton not to attend class today April 20, 2007
- Santa arriving in Downtown Lawrence Friday night November 27, 2009
- Where but in Lawrence? November 21, 2009
- Tennessee Tech coach thankful November 27, 2009
- FBI agent, KU alumnus to speak at Lied November 27, 2009
- New trial sought for 1992 murder case November 28, 2009
- Technology Association sets luncheon November 25, 2009
- Sprint completes purchase of Virgin Mobile November 25, 2009
8 November 2007
at 10:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Well, freaking well!
“Nobody is in this for personal gain………”
Yeah, right.
8 November 2007
at 10:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…
One does not forget something like this. Who doesn't know what they are invested in? Ignorance is not an excuse. Oh wait! It just worked for Kathryn Shields in Jackson County yesterday.
“Hack said Thursday that her failure to file that form was simply a misunderstanding of the requirements of the law.”
Ignorance of the law does not constitute justification of breaking the law. Unless, of course, you have friends willing to be scapegoats.
Lies.
8 November 2007
at 10:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BigPrune (Anonymous) says…
If she has to resign from the commission, does this mean the next highest vote getter in the past city commission race gets to step in? Does this mean Mr. David Schauner could replace Hack?
8 November 2007
at 10:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gccs14r (Anonymous) says…
Having Hack removed from office would be a huge win for all of Lawrence.
8 November 2007
at 10:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
“Does this mean Mr. David Schauner could replace Hack?”
Marion writes:
Ferchrissakes, let's hope not!
8 November 2007
at 10:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
camper (Anonymous) says…
I have heard (second hand knowledge….don't hold me to it) that many companies use high price lawyers and tax accountants to negotiate property tax deals with certain cities where they operate. Bottom line, company pays lawyer big consulting fee, gets tax discount. Three years later, agreement expires. Big fee to same lawyer, same three year discount (maybe even a little wining and dining). Sound like a racket? Yes. It happens right here in the good ole USA. I have also heard that many county commisioners expect cash under the table before they approve of any business venture.
Tho I seriously doubt any wrongdoing has been done with the Deciphera deal, I can see the good of us citzens being alarmed. Because while corruption may not exist in Lawrence, it happens everyday in the US. We need to be vigilant and expose these wrongdoings whenever possible.
8 November 2007
at 10:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
This smells bad. For our mayor to participate in discussions to fast track some unique incentives in a private hearing on a public matter that is characterized as “attorney/client privilege” when she had an undisclosed financial interest in the company that benefited from the sketchy discussions? No matter how innocent this may have been, it smells real bad. It's too bad because the company seems like a good fit for Lawrence. Now it gets stained by the half-assed way this was handled at City Hall. Too bad. Wonder if Ms. Hack will step down.
8 November 2007
at 11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
badger (Anonymous) says…
…
Yeah, what Baille said. Innocent intent or not, this just doesn't look good. At best, she's irresponsible with tracking her finances and the attendant legalities. At worst, she's not only a unethical public official who used her position to gain benefits for a company she had a financial interest in, but ham-handed enough to be blatant about it. The Deciphera deal was already a little dodgy; this makes it worse.
Either way, I wouldn't be surprised if she stepped down; even if she doesn't, I can't imagine she has any chance of reelection.
8 November 2007
at 11:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BigPrune (Anonymous) says…
If she does have to step down, maybe the City will name a park after her.
8 November 2007
at 11:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
igby (Anonymous) says…
So the plot thickens, this is just BS. I've ran for public office before and the forms very clear about your investments. Thats exactly why the state requires a statement of financial interest.
My gess is that Hack's lieing and recieved stock from this company since the Spring election and wants to hide the bribe she recieved. Overlooked it my A$$.
You can believe this BS if you want too, but this is a serious offence and she should be expelled from the commission for this, it that simple people.
If she owns stock in this company, tax dollars will go from the city coffers directly into this companies value, which makes the value of their stock worth more. Hack's interest is profit and she will profit from this deal thats the bottom line people. And the Behich is lying and violated the election laws.
Out her now, because were not going to set a president of accepting lies and fraud on election applications nor do we need commissioners profiting from decisions made by the commission.
8 November 2007
at 11:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Pywacket (Anonymous) says…
What a political hack. She should resign. Good comments, Baille.
8 November 2007
at 11:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
igby (Anonymous) says…
If she dose'nt resign we should proceed with a recall application and gather the 10% of the voter turn out, about 3,500 signatures and recall all the Spring election. Why, because all the commissioners new about this conflict and choose to hide it from the public. We can't have president like this and expect to have the publics faith in city government. Its time to act now.
8 November 2007
at 11:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Sue needs to be shown the fast track to the DOOR!
8 November 2007
at 11:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KsTwister (Anonymous) says…
There hasn't been much of a gain for the community in years from the taxpayers viewpoint. I question bids on projects not being taken if there are substantial savings for the same materials and labor either. These local dealings is ruining this town. Enough of this slight of hand. Where is it written that if you break the rules just once it should not count?
8 November 2007
at 11:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
igby (Anonymous) says…
Theres has to be a commitee formed to make application to the Secatary of States office. The filing fee is $100.00. We can gather signatures on Mass. Street. The application or complaint , has to be 200 words or less describing why the complaintants see cause for a recall of the Spring elections. The evidence is a matter of record and published via. LJW.
We should not wait on Branson's office to charge them with a crime. This action is a civil action that will be heard by the Sec. of State's office. From what I've seen and read, a recall will be granted I'm sure.
8 November 2007
at 11:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
fetch (Anonymous) says…
It is called a “Statement of Substantial Interest” or SSI.
Statutes here: http://www.kansas.gov/ethics/statecoi…
Many! KU and state employees fill this out once a year. It really doesn't provide much information, and non-filing is very! common. I am sure many people encounter changes in their situations who don't “re-file” before the normal annual filing.
But in this situation, a mountain will be made out of a molehill.
8 November 2007
at 11:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
igby (Anonymous) says…
Duh! fetch: this was not done by an employee, this is an elected offical and Mayor. Don't try to play this off as a common occurance because its not. She's hidding the truth about when this stock or investment was made.
8 November 2007
at 11:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
riverrat2 (Anonymous) says…
Hack should step down immediately. She has no cred left. I know exactly what I am invested in and so does everyone else. She's box blonde but she's not Brittney. Now investigative reporting on every commish is of paramount importance.
She's a bald face liar and that is now evident.
Get outta here Hack.
9 November 2007
at midnight
Suggest removal
Permalink
VoiceOfReason (Anonymous) says…
Mistake, by a$$!!! She should go to jail for this one. That woman appointed me to a committee and we were each handed a paper on the night of the first meeting and instructed to list any entity which we have any financial interest in, whatsoever, that might have anything to do with our committee to ensure there is no chance of violating any rules regarding disclosure. We were also instructed, in no uncertain terms, that we were not only not allowed to vote on the matters, but we could not even participate in any discussions regarding that entity. She either knows that or she is so far beyond incompetent that she is a danger to this city. She belongs in jail for deceit, fraud, and violating the open meeting law, in addition to the financial disclosure law. Anyone who buys her, “Oops! I didn't realize it!” is naive, at best.
9 November 2007
at midnight
Suggest removal
Permalink
igby (Anonymous) says…
I also find it very odd that so many of our elected officials own stock in this company; eventhough a private company; wether disclosed or not, its very odd that commissioners own the company stock.
9 November 2007
at 12:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
VoiceOfReason (Anonymous) says…
She is a local “law-maker”. It is her job to understand the laws she is supposed to adhere to when spending our money like a drunk in Vegas. She clearly thinks that the laws that apply to the rest of us aren't convenient for her.
9 November 2007
at 12:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
sourpuss (Anonymous) says…
Sounds like an inside job to me. Small town, petty corruption. But will the people of Lawrence stand for it? Remains to be seen.
9 November 2007
at 12:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ukillaJJ (Anonymous) says…
“I don't think I probably indicated my position on the issues one way or another”.
Well “I don't think that” Mrs. Hack is “probably” qualified to make that decision. Usually ethical decisions are based on thought rather than the lack thereof. If ethics are concerned, and you have the opportunity to ask someone, maybe you should.
Although Mrs. Hack can't fill out a form, I can….
Sue Hack's Ethics Report Card:
Grade: F+
Comments: Sue does not show much effort in her work, although she does show interest in monetary dealings.
9 November 2007
at 12:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Ragingbear (Anonymous) says…
Martha Stewart tried the same excuse with IMClone.
9 November 2007
at 12:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bearclaws (Anonymous) says…
And that jacket she is wearing in the photo has to be the most hideous thing I have ever seen.
Was she in any way responsible for Talbot's getting a sweet retail space across from the post office?
9 November 2007
at 12:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…
Dirty, Dirty, Dirty!
9 November 2007
at 12:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
igby (Anonymous) says…
I made this post on November 6th 2007 at 7:42 p.m.
(Deciphera deal to be addressed to public)
At the time, it was to get a laugh, but it sadly somehow is ringing moreso true.
____________________
Friday the 13th meeting, I can see it now, a lot of tongue in cheek.
Amyx:
“you get out there David and lie, do what ever you have to do, this is your mistake and your ill advice on the matter”.
Hack:
“Please will somebody do something, I can't take this anymore”, I'll give the stock ownership back, I just want it to all go away, Please somebody help us”.
Chestnut:
” I did'nt want this stupid job anyway, screw it, get out there Dave and lie like Mike says, but this better be good or you'll forfit your stocks they promised you and we'll split them up without you and send you cookies in the Federal pen”.
Dever:
” I'm not giving my stocks back, screw you Sue, shut up and listen to Mike. Dave, get your a$$ out there or we'll take back your country club membership and your pension and when you get out of jail you'll have nothing”.
Boog:
” I'm not hearing this, I think I need some air”.
Dever:
” Shut-up Boog, and sit down now, we got to think of something”.
Amyx:
” Get Marci Fransicso, on the phone and tell her to call Fritz, we got to cancel tonights meeting about that dam hotel”.
Lol.
9 November 2007
at 12:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Mkh (Anonymous) says…
Get Hack out NOW!
9 November 2007
at 12:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
VoiceOfReason (Anonymous) says…
Just, for the record…I would be happy to be involved in the recall campaign. I work part time and I usually have plenty of free time on my hands to use productively. I have a shred of experience with this City Machine, having been on an advisory committee for the past few years, and I would love to do something real and substantial to fix this corrupt town and stop the backwards spiral that's been going on too long. I still believe that this town could be a wonderful place to live. But only if people get the chance to have their real voices represented by their Commissioners. It's about time to kick them out.
If anyone speaking so far has been serious about getting some kind of ball rolling, let me know. You can email me through my username, I believe (at least you used to be able to) with any details and/or ideas you have. I am hesitant to post my real name and email on here because I don't want to be “outed” within the City Machine, yet, as someone who doesn't support 95% of the things they do. I volunteered to be on the committee I'm on to act as a voice of reason within the city, but there is very little that one person can do within this corrupt system, unfortunately.
Try to send me a message if you're truly interested in a recall campaign…or anything else appropriate and legal. We need some “normal” people running this town, for a change.
9 November 2007
at 12:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
igby (Anonymous) says…
Why not all of them? They all hid the meeting for a reason. Lets dig deeper, we may find that some of their family members also suddlenly own Deciphera stocks.
9 November 2007
at 1:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lounger (Anonymous) says…
Ummm….Im not shocked.
9 November 2007
at 1:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
fetch (Anonymous) says…
Folks, I don't know her from Adam. But an SSI filing is a notice filing to give people information about the fact that a potential relationship exists.
In this situation everyone knows that a relationship exists. Her required filing provides nothing more.
So you may be curious as to the relationship, but the SSI law, nor any other law requires her to disclose that. She properly exempted herself from voting. Now if you want to bag on her, go ahead….but she has not hid any information from you that the SSI law would have provided.
And by the way, this is precisely the kind of firm that Lawrence needs to be recruiting. Any investment by in this operation is beyond the definition of risky.
9 November 2007
at 1:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
local_support (Anonymous) says…
My gess is that Hack's lieing
Ya think?
9 November 2007
at 1:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
igby (Anonymous) says…
Fetch: Your wrong, thats all the more I'm going to say to you other than she's screwed and she will be hearing from the election commission for her hearing date soon. This is a serious violation of truth in disclosure of financial interest. The very complaint and probe from Branson's office with this admission is enough evidence for any interested State or Federal agency to investigate this companies financial activities, as well as, all the other commissioners who agreed to hid the meeting from the public.
I disagree with you regarding how much Lawrence, needs this company. Already, two commissioners own stock in this company, however small or not, commissioners owning stock in this small private company and dealing with the tax payers money and the city and counties business with this company is a red flag. Disclosure or not theres something wrong here.
A drug deal gone bad. lol.
9 November 2007
at 1:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
igby (Anonymous) says…
its_getting_warmer: I'm sure there are just as many commissioners in Garden city that will accept a private companies stock in lue of special tax rebates. I understand that Garden city already has a really good drug trade on going with Mexico already! lol. I just might ask the feds to see how many of your commissioners and police are already on their pay roll. Lol.
9 November 2007
at 1:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jlw53 (Anonymous) says…
And to think that she taught our children Junior High Government classes - including ethics!!!
She knows darn well what the rules are, but, like so many of our politicians, was arrogant in thinking that they are not for her when she can just claim ignorance later. And not too difficult for her to claim, either. I was aghast with some of the garbage she pontificated to my child, and thus not a bit surprised at this revelation.
Resign immediatley, and if any of the other commissioners have any ownership interest - including inlaws or other family, etc. - they better disclose it before we all find out.
The other commissioners also knew full well what was going on and should be sorely ashamed, too, but unlikely any will have the wherewithal to admit it.
It really is all about power to most of these people.
It is no wonder that so many of us have such little faith in many of the elected officials.
BTW, she also had her campaign workers putting her literature directly in our mailboxes during her initial campaign for commmissioner. This is a Federal violation which she also knew, but chose to ignore because she could just blame it on overzealous workers. However, the ones who were doing it in my area said they were specifically instructed to do so by her.
Needless to say, she has never received a vote from me.
9 November 2007
at 2:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
igby (Anonymous) says…
Just like Dever, Chesnut and Bush putting up their yard signs on city ride-of-way, when the city workers pulled them up, they accused Schauners people of stealing them. I hope the people that voted for these crooks live to regret it.
9 November 2007
at 2:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
igby (Anonymous) says…
He guys, watch the LJW and what they do next. In the morning they will run a second story with a similiar headline but slightly different. About 8:00 a.m. The story will be about the same topic and context, but they will hide all these post from the new viewer so the story will be refreshed. I've noticed that they have done this tactacal trick to hide opposition several times regarding lead stories that have involved special interest. Watch how they dance. Be ready to blog again in the morning. Don't let this important issue thats so vital to our cities political truth and future be hidden away every 12 hours in the LJW's archives.
9 November 2007
at 2:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
devilsrighthandman (Anonymous) says…
Hey igby,
You said in your first post that you ran for office once. If you campaign was as bad as your spelling it is no wonder you didn't get elected. I agree that the Mayor should have known better on this one, but I don't know much about the details on this. I have never trusted anyone in office, and it always seems that it is the less of evils. I am just having a real hard time listening to igby rant,rave and rally the troops in his second grade spelling. Write out your argument and then type it in.
9 November 2007
at 3:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
Resignations and recalls are in order. Not disclosing had to be a deliberate action. Mayor Hack has been in office wayyyyyyy to long NOT to understand the rules.
9 November 2007
at 3:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
Resignations are in order from all who knew yet kept quiet including county commissioners and Chamber of Commerce leaders!
9 November 2007
at 3:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gabbo (Anonymous) says…
I have resisted sinking to the level of you drunking pirates lately, but c'mon, this one is a softball. First, spywell is giving English lessons and Marion is starting recall petitions for jurisdictions that he doesn't reside. Most importantly, however, is that virtually all filings of these types in the the great state of Kansas don't require a peep until you control ten percent of said venture. She probably really didn't get advised to file these forms and she recused herself from the vote. Go buy property and invest in business, then have the ballz to run for local office! You people are similar to goldfish complaining about algae.
9 November 2007
at 4:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
northtown (Anonymous) says…
If you do not understand the law,this is ingnorance,right? If this was just the common person with nothing,that did not understand the law they would do something leggally,but oh no,not here,This is Lawrence.
Kick this woman out of city hall today for this action!!!!!!!!
Good Luck Lawrence-
9 November 2007
at 5:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Warren6032 (Anonymous) says…
Sue Hack is sexy!!!!!!!!
9 November 2007
at 5:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
someoneelse (Anonymous) says…
Igby,
A court ruling involving Mt. Rushmore might set a precedent on a set of presidents, and you might ride away if you have the right-of-way.
Spywell,
Never use a comma to separate two independent clauses, unless it precedes a conjuction such as the word “and” (see above). It makes you look uneducated.
sorry all……couldn't help myself……..carry on
9 November 2007
at 6:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ontheotherhand (Anonymous) says…
It seems to me that if you do not know the “rules,” you should seek to find them out, just in case. The Mayor has an “open phone line” to DA Branson so she could have simply called him (as opposed to jumping through a million hoops to get an answer like the rest of us). I would have called for clarification, even if I had only two shares of their stock.
9 November 2007
at 6:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
pace (Anonymous) says…
She should resign, that would save us tax payers from having to pay for the recall efforts. But if it cost money to get rid of her, that would be a good investment.
9 November 2007
at 6:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Oracle_of_Rhode (Anonymous) says…
Hack is using her power to steal our money. I think this matter needs to go quickly to the Douglas Co. DA for investigation and prosecution.
This woman violated the Kansas open meetings act, froze out the people of Lawrence from a voice in their own government, gave taxpayer money to her cronies — all in an effort to line her own pockets with our money! This is outrageous.
Then she pleads she was ignorant of the law.
This is classic Abramoff and DeLay-type politics — for personal profit. It was prosecuted in Washington and shouldn't be allowed in Lawrence either.
9 November 2007
at 6:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jade (Anonymous) says…
Tuesday night, the Commission will attempt to explain away its back-door policy-making by arguing that Deciphera is good for Lawrence. This spurious argument should not distract any of us from the corruption of this Commission, all of whom participated, all of whom lied by omission when they did not disclose the rebate at the public meeting, and all of whom voted for it.
Nor should we allow the other four to hang Sue Hack as the scapegoat whose ritual sacrifice grants them political absolution. Sue has to resign, but so do the rest. Let us not forget that Chestnut's own Allen Press is out of compliance with the requirements of its tax abatement, and yet the abatement was renewed; that Walmart developers contributed to Dever and Chestnut's campaigns and were subsequently paid off with the invitation to submit a new proposal.
What role did Corliss play? And where were the city attorneys when the Commission was making policy behind closed doors?
If we lose the right to ethical, responsible, democratic government at the local level, there's nothing left of democracy to defend.
Tuesday night. Be there.
9 November 2007
at 7:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cowboy (Anonymous) says…
Resign and also take corliss and the city legal person with you , this should have not happened , another example of amateur hour local overpaid pols !
9 November 2007
at 7:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
pinecreek (Anonymous) says…
As one who has a financial interest of ANY kind in a target company, she should not have been in the room during the discussion. While she may not have contributed to the conversation, having knowledge of what transpired behind closed doors creates opportunities for information transfers; a correctly conducted recusal makes such an occurrence much less likely.
Anybody see the irony in a former USD 497 Government/Social Studies teacher falling down on this one? Makes me chuckle, at the very least…
9 November 2007
at 7:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
monkeyhawk (Anonymous) says…
Is Mr. Branson the one who should be handling this? Highly doubtful.
Perhaps it is time for the taxpayers of Lawrence to demand Paul Morrison delve into this matter, as well as the disposition of our general fund, and the past and present spending of both the city and the county. Turn on the lights and expose all the cockroaches.
What kind of climate has existed in this city to give Ms. Hack the idea that she is so far above the rest of us that rules do not apply to her? Do not believe her claim that she did not know, or that it was a mistake. She knew exactly what she was doing. But, was that the reason for the secret deal? Unlikely it was something as trivial as Hack's small time investment.
How many other “mistakes” have there been that have not been discovered (as of yet)?
Thanks to Ms. Hack for the complete loss of trust in our locally elected officials. But, I guess she can kiss those dreams of that cushy Topeka office (and beyond) goodbye.
9 November 2007
at 7:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jade (Anonymous) says…
Check out that video posted online with the story. The editor included a shot of the whole City Commission, but it was the last one with Schauner and Rundle rather than the present one. What's up with that?
9 November 2007
at 7:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
toefungus (Anonymous) says…
This is very disappointing and permanently damages my trust in her. There are so many underhanded deals in Lawrence between the Realtors, developers, and bankers that fund it. The general public is so disrespected. Now I see why such an effort to remove Mike as city manager was made. They needed an inside person to help pull this and many more hidden deals off. Lawrence, as greedy as it gets. Everyone, and I mean everyone, must be at the next city commission meeting with signs demanding Hack's resignation.
9 November 2007
at 7:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
thedrawl (Anonymous) says…
You know, I like Sue Hack a lot. Always nice, amiable, etc. But her actions are wildly unethical. She shouldn't have been in the meeting, she shouldn't have ever had an official chat with a company official…heck, she probably should have sold off her stock when she knew the deal was in place (if she acquired the stock before the deal came to pass).
And she had to have known this would happen. It's a small town. There's no “under the radar” in Lawrence. She's been around long enough to know what she's doing. I mean, if you, elected city official, held stock in a company and the city was about to sign off on a multi-million dollar incentives package for that same company, wouldn't you double- and triple-check that all the right disclosure forms were filled out?
It makes no sense. She had to have known what she was doing. It's the only explanation.
9 November 2007
at 7:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawklawrence (Anonymous) says…
At the very least, this indicates a lack of seriousness regarding some commissioner's attitudes about the use of public money and the public trust.
The credibility of the commission has now become an issue.
Seems to me that this town owes a lot of its successes to plain damn luck when we see this kind of impropriety. Think what we could do with some better minds running the show.
I am disappointed. I wanted to trust this bunch.
9 November 2007
at 7:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
monkeyhawk (Anonymous) says…
“Well, well, well: more rightwing duplicity. Taking cash while giving cash. An age old rightwing practice:.”
log, get off your freaking high horse. Are you oblivious to your heroine's underhanded campaign finances - Hsu - most recently and then all the way back to the selling of the White House bedroom to the highest bidder? Your confirmation bias is boring, as are you.
Your posts are like fingernails on the blackboard.
9 November 2007
at 7:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
wysiwyg69 (Anonymous) says…
the big, maybee not the biggest question is WHEN did sue buy these stocks?
9 November 2007
at 8:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawklawrence (Anonymous) says…
I hope Lawrence doesn't get a reputation for having city leaders who are for sale. We already have a reputation for being the most difficult town in Kansas to do business in.
9 November 2007
at 8:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MacHeath (Anonymous) says…
I have never help public office, and am not a student of the law.
If I was on the commision, and a deal like this came up concerning any
company I had even a passing interest in, I would make damned sure that
everyone knew about it.
I also have enought sence not to discuss issues like this in a closed
meeting.
My point is this:
Sue Hack and the rest of the commisioners are not blithering idoits.
One would have to be a blithering idioit to do what they have collectively
done, and have no idea they could at least “appear” unethical, if not be
down-right unlawful. It was not an accident.
9 November 2007
at 8:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
50YearResident (Anonymous) says…
Look for TV CH5 to jump on this.
9 November 2007
at 8:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
melott (Anonymous) says…
Didn't the voters get what they deserve from the 15% turnout in the last election?
9 November 2007
at 8:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jackie (Anonymous) says…
Her self-proclaimed ignorance of this disclosure requirement should not go unnoticed. Her understanding was that she did not have to disclose unless she owned 5% of the company!That is unexcusable ignorance.
Using that understanding she could own millions in GM stock and still vote on maters regarding GM before the commission because she did not own 5% of teh company.
outrageous
9 November 2007
at 8:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
While we are investigating, someone should dig into the relationship between Deciperha and Ktech and the Biotech authority, and, yes, the governor.
9 November 2007
at 8:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
It'd be very interesting to know how many of her campaign contributors are also investors in Deciphra.
9 November 2007
at 8:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LawSW (Anonymous) says…
Too bad, so sad. One does not simply “forget” to file something of this magnitude. She needs to step down for this MAJOR infraction.
9 November 2007
at 8:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
Don't let the screen door….. oh, you know the rest.
9 November 2007
at 8:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
alfie (Anonymous) says…
Contact a Topeka and Kansas City tv station and make them aware of this story with the Lawrence commision
9 November 2007
at 8:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
Just to stop logrithmic in his/her/its attempt to turn this into a partisan argument, sources tell me that Mayor Hack has (or had) aspirations of moving up in the Democrat party, as if that mattered, and it does not. This issue has nothing to do with party politics, it is about personal ethics.
9 November 2007
at 8:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
oscarfactor (Anonymous) says…
If Mayor Hack wants to save her public image, she needs to sell her interest in Deciphera immediately - for the same $$$ she invested in the first place.
9 November 2007
at 8:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
alfie (Anonymous) says…
Contact a Topeka and Kansas City tv station and make them aware of this story with the Lawrence commision. The news on this needs to be spread, this is not right
9 November 2007
at 8:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yellowhouse (Anonymous) says…
The City of Lawrence is run like a back woods small town Good 'Ol boys type Government.
The Yellow House has been the target of many back lashes from that mentality.
When the Fake FBI investigation was launched, A review board was considered. At that time Mike Rundall seemed to support it, but Sue Hack was against it (as seen in this video) She did not feel Officials need oversight.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc…
9 November 2007
at 8:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
acg (Anonymous) says…
This just doesn't look good, anyway you slice it. Even political laymen know that you're supposed to mention financial interest you have in a company you're voting to give tax incentives to. Besides ignorance of the law is never an excuse. It's not a valid excuse for the rest of society, so it is definitely not an excuse for a supposedly educated politician. Boo to you Sue! You should step down because anything you do from here on out is going to be paled under a cloud of suspicion.
9 November 2007
at 8:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jade (Anonymous) says…
>I hope Lawrence doesn't get a reputation for having city leaders who are for sale.
oops, too late!!!!! This Commission was bought and paid for by the money-grubbing developer establishment in the last election.
>We already have a reputation for being the most difficult town in Kansas to do business in.
Lawrence isn't hard to do business in even if you mean business that pursues profit with no sense of responsibility to the health and well-being of employees, environment, and community. That ought to be impossible here, but it is business as usual. This stupid argument that Lawrence is anti-business is no more than a political strategy to protect developers' interests.
9 November 2007
at 9:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
plumberscrack, agree. I'm curious about the involvement of the school district (Weseman, board members??) in the discussions, as well, since, as reported, the deal specifically allows the school district to keep its share of property taxes.
9 November 2007
at 9:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
OldEnuf2BYurDad (Anonymous) says…
She should resign. I'm not calling her deceptive, criminal or otherwise dishonest - I'm just saying that the upstanding thing to do is take a stand against this kind of behavior by demonstrating enough integrity to step out of leadership.
9 November 2007
at 9:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
nlf78 (Anonymous) says…
She knows the procedures, she knows she wasn't being honest through the whole thing. Hack cannot claim stupidity as often as she has. I really hope steps are taken to get her out of the mayor's seat.
9 November 2007
at 9:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BigPrune (Anonymous) says…
Maybe she was relying on the advice from a trusted attoney in office either elected or hired and they double crossed her by verbally saying it wasn't necessary to disclose. All speculation.
9 November 2007
at 9:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Rhoen (Anonymous) says…
It's not so much about party politics, pork-barrel glad-handing, or personal ethics … It's about criminal behavior.
But if local history is a predictor, it's unlikely than any substantive action will occur. That's “how things is done around here” and people who don't care for the me-mine-now approach to public administration and community service will have to just float back up into the cloud from whence they came.
9 November 2007
at 10:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jade (Anonymous) says…
>Hack cannot claim stupidity as often as she has. I really hope steps are taken to get her out of the mayor's seat.
I do, too, but I, for one, believe her. She really is this stupid.
9 November 2007
at 10:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“So I guess Highberger gets a pass?”
Not entirely, and he hasn't asked for one, but Highberger is the one who insisted that it not be put on the consent agenda; otherwise, there would have been no public discussion at all.
9 November 2007
at 10:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
sortofinformed (Anonymous) says…
Have you noticed that the public officials invested in the company that is the centerpiece of this scandal have major interests in the insurance industry? They have also been supporters of every development proposal to come before the community. Insurance income produced by development is big money. Isn't time to examine the indirect elements of conflict of interest?
9 November 2007
at 10:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jade (Anonymous) says…
Nothing could be sadder than to see the lone Commissioner not owned entirely by the development establishment tarred with the same brush that is painting the rest of that lot. But there it is… Maybe his conscience will win out and he'll break ranks and talk to Chad Lawhorn or, better, Branson or Morrison, about what happened. I've rarely agreed with Highberger's politics, but I've not known him to be dishonest before.
9 November 2007
at 10:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ilovelucy (Anonymous) says…
I am as disappointed as everyone else on this thread by the actions of the Commission and the City Manager. However, think about this: Deciphera has many high dollar investors in Olathe that are just waiting for the company to pull out of Lawrence. We lose this deal and we lose all credibility in the bioscience industry. More Lawrence citizens will commute to Olathe to work for this company. Our tax base will continue to rise if we can't attract decent businesses to Lawrence.
Then we'll listen to everyone continue to whine about rising taxes, which will continue to rise yearly because we are so business unfriendly.
You can't have it both ways. Either shut up about the tax base or let a decent business come into this town.
Igby: I can understand why you only “ran” for public office. I wouldn't vote for anyone with such atrocious spelling and grammer either. Talk about stupid…pot to kettle.
9 November 2007
at 10:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
I lover lucy wrote:
“Igby: I can understand why you only “ran” for public office. I wouldn't vote for anyone with such atrocious spelling and grammer either.”
Marion writes:
Oh, Lucy!
You don' get no votes neither!
“grammEr”!
bawhahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
9 November 2007
at 10:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ilovelucy (Anonymous) says…
OOPS-the difference being that I have never and don't aspire to run for public office. Sorry for the error.
9 November 2007
at 10:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
ilovelucy, Mayor Hack, Manager Corliss, the others on the city commission, and Squiers of the Chamber of Commerce, should have taken the importance of the Deciphera deal into consideration before they embarked on their flawed course of action. It appears that what you are advocating is the position of, “the end justifies the means,” and, what is worse, you are advocating that before we even know whether “the end” is what has been promised.
9 November 2007
at 10:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
smitty (Anonymous) says…
Ethics code exists.
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/1991/mar…
This one explains the finacial interest…
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/1991/sep…
There never was enforcement criteia of the ethics code put into place.
At one time the city had this code on thier site howetver I am unable to locate it any longer. Take time to read up on the mnay JW enteries in the 1990-1991 time frame to get the picture. all this so called ethics debate and code took place while Schumm was under fire for drug use aalegations from fellow commissioners. It also hapened in the middle ot the 6 indian murders and the cover up by city commissioner Shirley Martin-Smity, Bremby, Wildgen, Olin, Flory, etc. of the Sevier killing by LPD.
I have a copy of that ethics code somewhere in my files but the JW should easily come up with a copy.
We have been a laughable small town red-neck cover up of honest government for ever. It's just now getting some press.
9 November 2007
at 10:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KsTwister (Anonymous) says…
Perhaps its time for the rest of our elected officials to decide what “their” due course of action should be. They are supposed to protect the citizens interests in city government. I for one would be interested to see their position.
9 November 2007
at 10:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
chucknoblet (Anonymous) says…
Whether intentional or unintentional, the appearance of impropreity will always be there, especially because of the secretive nature of the deal in the first place. She should at least step down as mayor, if she's not going to resign from the commission altogether.
9 November 2007
at 10:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
stuckinthemiddle (Anonymous) says…
Dollypawpaw
“Red-neck” is a racial slur? How so?
9 November 2007
at 11:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bunnyhawk (Anonymous) says…
Gee……shouldn't a former government teacher understand her responsibilities here? If you all want to believe this is an oversight…………….do you want to invest in my Douglas County Diamond Mine?????
9 November 2007
at 11:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
etsi_truss (Anonymous) says…
“”“while corruption may not exist in Lawrence”“” RIGHT
9 November 2007
at 12:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Ceallach (Anonymous) says…
So now we are to believe that Sue Hack was ignorant of her obligation to make this information known, took part in closed door discussions, but by abstaining from the vote she is blameless? What a joke. If something isn't done about this obvious attempt to gain profit by violating the trust and position the people of Lawrence have placed in her then we have more than a crooked mayor to worry about. She insults every resident of Lawrence by playing dumb. Next thing we will hear is that the boys are picking on her!! Poor dumb Sue, what will she do, what will she do?
9 November 2007
at 12:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ilovelucy (Anonymous) says…
Log: good to hear from you! I can only wish that the business I work for would get $3,000,000.00! However, I don't think that will happen in my lifetime.
Whereas I do believe that this entire situation needs to be investigated and actions will be necessary at the finish, this company offers decent, higher wage employment that we desperately need.
This whole affair has been handled terribly. And if you want to believe that I'm stating that the ends justifies the means, I'm not. But I really do believe that this furor will take the company out of Lawrence, leaving us empty handed once again. I just hope that their “powers that be” are understanding of the situation and won't turn tail and run.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Take care-Lucy
9 November 2007
at 12:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Keith (Anonymous) says…
“One has to ask at which point did city Manager Corliss become aware of Mayor Hack's financial interest in this company?”
Maybe they met at a shareholders meeting? But I kid.
Keith
9 November 2007
at 1:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
alfie (Anonymous) says…
Invest in Culture Farm, contact Del Shankel to see how it works. Invest in Deciphera? or better yet do not invest in anything with a fake Hollywood name
You are so right mentioning this other company that is exactly what this reminded me of, what will happen next? and you know how that all turned out.
9 November 2007
at 1:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ralphralph (Anonymous) says…
Sack the Hack!
9 November 2007
at 1:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
stuckinthemiddle (Anonymous) says…
Dollypawpaw
“It involves a color:”
So… is referring to someone as a “blue-blood” racist?
9 November 2007
at 3:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
smitty (Anonymous) says…
deciphera funding and performance agreement
http://media.lawrence.com/news/docume…
Biochenomix, Inc, aka Deciphera
http://www.manta.com/coms2/dnbcompany…
Home page
http://www.deciphera.com/index.html
Kansas investors…….$15 million
Biochenomix, Inc, aka
Ties to KU
http://newsletter.lawrencetech.org/in…
http://www.hbc.ku.edu/Newsltrs/v13n2/…
http://www.pharm.ku.edu/index.php?pag…
and Kansas economic developement
http://www.news.ku.edu/2005/october/1…
9 November 2007
at 3:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
VoiceOfReason (Anonymous) says…
“I have a copy of that ethics code somewhere in my files but the JW should easily come up with a copy.” - smitty
That's an easy one. Whenever you are reappointed or reelected to office in Lawrence they send you an information packet that includes detailed information about the open meeting law and financial disclosure requirements. I know that for a fact because I have gotten it twice now. Hiding behind her husband doesn't fly because it specifically explains that a “direct financial interest” includes anyone in your immediate family. She is lying through her teeth…period.
I don't know what the point of that cartoon was because I have voted in every single election since I've lived here and I've voted against her every time it was an option. I'm participating in local politics and doing my best to work within the system to change it. But corruption skews the playing field to the point that working legally within the system is incapable of producing the results that should, otherwise, have occured. She, and every Commissioner who had a part in covering up this “rebate”, should be kicked out and/or jailed.
9 November 2007
at 4:01 p.m.
Permalink
458casul (Anonymous) says…
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
9 November 2007
at 4:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
VoiceOfReason (Anonymous) says…
458casul (Anonymous) says:
“boog smokes dope should we ask him to step down”
Fine by me!
9 November 2007
at 4:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blackwalnut (Anonymous) says…
Hack is a crook. She was a crook before and now that she has like-minded people on the commission she can be an even bigger crook.
The Wal-Mart deal needs to be investigated, too. Her husband's insurance business getting business from Doug Compton, the Wal-Mart landowner, who also happens to be a close friend of a Wal-Mart heir, needs to be thoroughly outed. She didn't disclose her insurance business with Compton, either. And ignorance is no excuse, nor is it believable, for a mayor who has been on the commission for awhile. Wasn't she a civics teacher for God's sake?
Recall Mayor Hack, then repeal any legislation that she participated in where there was an improper interest on her part.
9 November 2007
at 4:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blackwalnut (Anonymous) says…
Anonymous user
ilovelucy (Anonymous) says:
“I am as disappointed as everyone else on this thread by the actions of the Commission and the City Manager. However, think about this: Deciphera has many high dollar investors in Olathe that are just waiting for the company to pull out of Lawrence. We lose this deal and we lose all credibility in the bioscience industry.”
Mayor Hack a/k/a ilovelucy: If the Deciphera deal has merit it would be best considered with you out of it, off the commission, and out of the mayor's seat. It is not good for Lawrence to have a mayor who has so many financial ties to business people in the area who appeal to the city to approve their business deals, even asking for public funds and changes of laws to make it all possible. What you did regarding Wal-Mart alone should have cost you your elected position. You did not disclose your financial relationship to Doug Compton then and you should have. You got away with that. No wonder you thought you could sneak through the Deciphera deal as well.
9 November 2007
at 5:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dorothyhr (Dorothy Hoyt-Reed) says…
Maybe the Dediphera deal is good, but why wasn't it presented to the public? It's funny there are a lot of people on here who seemed so happy that we have a growth at any cost commission, then they get upset when they practice growth at any cost. You get what you ask for, maybe you should be careful what you ask for.
9 November 2007
at 5:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
It should be noted that elected officails are exempt from drug tesiting requirements imposed on other employees of the City of Lawrence, Kansas.
9 November 2007
at 5:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Mkh (Anonymous) says…
cool (Anonymous) says:
“maybe she can work at the new HOTEL on campus !”
––––––––––––
No that is too much responsibilty, I think she should be the “greeter” at the new Walmart!
Let's kick the crooks out!
9 November 2007
at 6:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blindrabbit (Anonymous) says…
The electorate should have seen this coming! We have been putting-up with inferior government for a long time; it has long been apparent that there has been a too cozy relationship with the City Commission, the Planning Commision and the real estate, banking and insurance communities. Lawrence deserves better! The role of the City Manager in this fiasco is particularly discouraging in view of his legal background. But consider the way his was hired; the Watson-Wilgen-Corless conection is obvious; no serious “outside” candidates were considered or given an “equal footing” in the hiring process. No new ideas, only the same old smokescreen.
Let the legal process work toward cleaning-up the current mess and clean out the rats-nest that currently governs our community, But let us take this opportunity to look into a more responsible and accountable form of government for the future. There has been a lot of talk about looking at the Strong Mayor concept were the major city officer is directly elected and accountable to the electorate. It is apparent that Lawrence is in the governmental Stone Age where special interest groups control a poorly trained and manipulated City Commission.
HELP!!!!
9 November 2007
at 6:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
blindrabbit makes good points, but overlooks the other major influence/benefactor in the Deciphera deal: KU.
9 November 2007
at 6:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
George_Braziller (Anonymous) says…
My prediction is that Sue work on damage control as a city commissioner for less than a month and then just step down. By January or so she will no longer be Director of Leadership Lawrence. The Chamber will say that she left for “personal reasons” or “to spend more time with her family.”
9 November 2007
at 6:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KsTwister (Anonymous) says…
What I would love to see is a taxpayers money trail investigation by the IRS. Poetic justice?
9 November 2007
at 6:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MississippiFrog (Anonymous) says…
I can't believe this woman used to be my teacher!! She needs carried out on a rail!
9 November 2007
at 8:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
camper (Anonymous) says…
Highberger does have integrity, though I often disagree with him. I actually agree with properly approved tax abatements. Call me a federalist but this is my solution to a problem that is not unique to Lawrence:
1) Have the federal governement set all state, local, property, and sales-use taxes at one uniform level…based on a national average.
2) Make these rates flat, low, and non-negotiable.
3) No rebates, no credits, no abatements, no nonsense
Lets face it, the way it is right now the door is wide open for abuse. Things need to be more black & white.
9 November 2007
at 8:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tkmoore (Anonymous) says…
Just how stupid do these city commissioners think we are? Heck maybe we should have the white house come here and fix this! NOT
9 November 2007
at 8:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
In all this news, I still cannot sort out how much Deciphera is paying, with their own money, to buy this taxpayer-owned building. Anyone know?
9 November 2007
at 8:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blindrabbit (Anonymous) says…
I wonder if Ethics was/were part of Sue's curriculum(s) during her teaching career in the Lawrence School system? If it was, it didn't stay with her, if it was not, why is she directing Leadership Lawrence. Either way, she has not proved to be a good role model for our youth or our future leaders.
9 November 2007
at 8:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Crossfire (Anonymous) says…
Wal~Mart stock..?
9 November 2007
at 10:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
curlygrrrl (Anonymous) says…
Nice try, Godot…
Fact is that Sue Hack is, and always has been, a registered republican.
No doubt that she previously had aspirations for higher political office (and I thought she would have been good at it) — however, it would seem the stink of this deal dooms that possibility.
Finally, one issue the right and the left can agree to on this board…corruption (and/or) the appearance of it, doesn't belong in our city government.
You can bet if David Schauner was still on the Council, he would have been asking all the right questions about this deal. Of course, all the growth machine proponents carped about his temerity for asking questions, but isn't that what was missing hear — a free, fair, PUBLIC hearing?
In the end, I'm not sure that making a deal to bring Deciphera to town wasn't the right move — but, it clearly is a deal that should have been made in the public view and without any involvement by officials who were invested in the company.
9 November 2007
at 10:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blackwalnut (Anonymous) says…
Crossfire:
Insurance business from Doug Compton, the Wal-Mart landowner, to Alan Hack, that's known for sure. Wal-Mart gave Sue $1,000 a few years ago teacher of the year for somethingerother. Chestnut used to work for Farmland Industries. Dever owns an environmental consulting company, guess how much the cleanup of Farmland will cost, and who knows who will get that contract (my prediction: Dever's company in the disguise of some subsidiary with another name). I think if they really probe they will find a lot of under the table deals meant to enrich the commissioners and their business friends, not to benefit Lawrence. Maybe that's why Branson recused himself; he figures he knows too much, and Morrison might not be able to find it all.
Silver lining: With this blown wide open, the public might be more wary every time a new $30 million project gets forced on us from the city, in the same breath as they tell us the city is broke and needs a tax increase.
9 November 2007
at 10:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Rationalanimal (Anonymous) says…
Sue Hack is, and always has been, a registered republican.
*******************************************************************************
Bull. You obviously haven't followed Lawrence politics, at all.
9 November 2007
at 10:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Yabut (Anonymous) says…
“I understand that there are folks who question the actions of the commission, but I would hope that they understand they are dealing with five people who can be trusted,” Hack said of herself and her fellow commissioners.
So basically, it's ok that you broke the law because you “can be trusted”? She's now proven that she CAN'T be trusted. This whole situation has put a black mark on Deciphera and the City Commission. No matter what happens from this point on, their reputations will also be called into question. Especially for Hack. Forever. She may as well resign. Even if she's found innocent of the charges, the public will never trust her again.
9 November 2007
at 10:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Yabut (Anonymous) says…
I was going to add “I'm pretty sure that had this same stunt been pulled by a city employee, he or she would have been fired in a heartbeat” but then I remembered a landlord whose full time job was to investigate complaints of housing discrimination for the city.
So in other words, its business as usual in Lawrence.
Disgusting.
9 November 2007
at 10:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blackwalnut (Anonymous) says…
ilovelucy (Anonymous) says:
OOPS-the difference being that I have never and don't aspire to run for public office. Sorry for the error.
Oh, really? Cheer up, my guess is you'll never have to again.
10 November 2007
at 12:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
camper (Anonymous) says…
This is no fiction. I remember one time after a softball game, one of my teamates told me that he worked with county commisioners in other cities (regarding business investment) and he flat out told me that certain county commisioners expected cash under the table, no question. It was the way business was done. He said nothing ever got done (in a city I will not mention) because he was never willing to resort to extortion let alone ask his employer to agree. This revelation did not hit me at the moment. But it made me mad as time moved on. How can some uneducated thug think he can exhort money in such a manner? You ask how mad I am against them? Just as mad as I am against terrorism. Us citizens should show no tolerance for corruption. We should do everything we can do to expose it. And when it is exposed, show our disgust in a peaceful manner. Though I have no faith in the Lawrence commision (save for the one lone commisioner who had a resignation), I believe in the FEDS.
Boog. I will tell you I have disagreed with you. But you are the one and only commisioner who raised a point of doubt in this whole deal. I respect you man.
10 November 2007
at 7:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
alfie (Anonymous) says…
New Yard Sign Coming- HACK for Jail Commisioner-
10 November 2007
at 8:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
I would have respected Boog had he brought this to light in a big way, by having a press conference before the meeting when this matter was brought up on consent agenda, and by voicing his “nay” vote with a long speech detailing the abuses of power that he suspected, rather than hinting at his discomfort afterward. As attorney for the KDHE, and a board member of the bioscience authority, he knew exactly what was going on, and he knew it for a long, long time. I do not trust anyone who was involved with these open meeting violations.
10 November 2007
at 8:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
That brings up another symptom of what is wrong with our city governance. I recall Mayor Hack, and others, stating the importance of reaching “consensus” on issues, and maintianing collegiality and congeneality in meetings and negotiations. What that translates to is “no differing opinions shall be allowed.”
What we need is a lot more contentiousness and disagreement among the commissioners, and thorough questioning of the proposals brought forward, and recommendations made, by city staff. We should not elect commissioners to be cheer leaders for the city staff and the Chamber, we should elect them to represent our interests. This apparently did not happen in this last election.
l join with those who are calling for a change to a system with a strong, elected, accountable mayor who oversees (as opposed to “depends upon”) the city manager, and a commission made up of representatives of specific districts.
10 November 2007
at 9:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blackwalnut (Anonymous) says…
This is a lesson for voters who cannot decode the language when politicians run on “jobs” and “the economy.”
The jobs are not for you. At least, they are not jobs you would want.
The economy they'll work for is not yours, or the city's.
It's too late, but at least, now we know.
10 November 2007
at 9:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blackwalnut (Anonymous) says…
Godot (Anonymous) says:
I would have respected Boog had he brought this to light in a big way
Hilarious!!! That's right, Godot! Pick on the least culpable one!
Any one of the commissioners could have blown the lid on this matter, and you know it.
Shame on you Godot.
Your earlier comments about how the political party doesn't matter, scolding logarithmic for bringing party into it, and trying to paint Hack as a Democrat, must have been disingenuous.
10 November 2007
at 9:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blackwalnut (Anonymous) says…
ilovelucy (Anonymous) says:
I am as disappointed as everyone else on this thread by the actions of the Commission and the City Manager. However, think about this: Deciphera has many high dollar investors in Olathe that are just waiting for the company to pull out of Lawrence. We lose this deal and we lose all credibility in the bioscience industry.
1. What makes you an expert on the bioscience industry? How do you know Lawrence will lose all credibility? Maybe Lawrence will GAIN credibility as being a town where only honest businesses can come, on honest merits.
2. Who cares if the company pulls out of Lawrence. The company itself has lost all credibility here. After this, I would not think Olathe would want them, and Olathe taxpayers are now forewarned that the company will happily engage in corrupt practices to snow the taxpayers.
Of course, this investigation by Morrison could exonerate everyone involved, in which case (2) is not true. We'll see!
10 November 2007
at 10:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
coneflower (Anonymous) says…
Let's hope this investigation by Morrison is a real one, and not a whitewash. A good guess is that these companies pay off public servants; they could get to him too.
I hope this investigation over Deciphera sheds some light on why this city commission is so in love with Wal-Mart, too.
10 November 2007
at 10:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
coneflower (Anonymous) says…
camper said:
Boog. I will tell you I have disagreed with you. But you are the one and only commisioner who raised a point of doubt in this whole deal. I respect you man.
I second that. It can't be easy to be a minority of one on a commission where the mayor suppresses dissent and views public commentary as an annoyance.
10 November 2007
at 10:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
IMHO, if policy matters were discussed in a closed session, any person involved who did not immediately call a halt to the meeting, and then bring up the policy matter in an open meeting for discussion, shares responsibility.
10 November 2007
at 10:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
coneflower (Anonymous) says…
Godot:
Then why are you openly criticizing one commissioner openly by name, and not all of them?
10 November 2007
at 10:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
JohnBrown (Anonymous) says…
Let's clear all the political posturing away and look at this problem from the view of what's in the City's (I mean, of course, the people of the city here) best interest.
1. Keeping Deciphera here is a good thing, so let's act and do things that don't chase them away.
2. Sue screwed up. With respect to the City's best interests, Sue should offer to resign. It's too bad because it was just a dumb mistake, I believe. But prolonging her personal political career is not worth it if the associated cost is losing Deciphera.
Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here: everyone should be focused on keeping Deciphera here
10 November 2007
at 10:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
Confelower, point taken. When I made the comment about Boog, it was in resonse to someone who pointed out that he was the only commissioner who did the right thing. All of them who attended these meetings and did not report them to the public before the vote was held on the consent agenda that approved the Deciphera deal are at fault.
10 November 2007
at 12:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kneejerkreaction (Anonymous) says…
Promising company. Based on what? Financials? Track record?
Hack still does not disclose the AMOUNT of her “interest”. That means it's a lot.
Special interest at work here Sue.
Resign.
Should still pursue prosecution.
The end.
10 November 2007
at 12:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Mkh (Anonymous) says…
Does anyone know if the KC or Topeka media outlets are covering this yet?
10 November 2007
at 5:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
situveux1 (Anonymous) says…
You know, Kansas law allows for an elected officials recall for any breaking of the law…including failing to file the proper forms for financial disclosures…I think it's time we taught these folks a lesson.
10 November 2007
at 5:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
camper (Anonymous) says…
Has anyone here ever read John Steinbeck's novel “The Winter of Our Discontent”? It really gets at the heart of corruption. It shows that we are not immune. Even us buzzards who are swooping. I once had a college proffesor who addressed us and said if their is any hint that what you are doing is not ethical, turn away and don't do it. Get out of the grey and stay with good ole' black and white whenever possible. Whenever you are in the pool of the ends and means, just steer clear.
Getting warmer say's it is miniscule? Maybe. But I think even Sue Hack would take offense at you for refering to her as a carcass. Oh and I guess a kickback is miniscule too. Here is an analogy:
1) Crooked Politician - Just like someone who cheats at golf.
2) Its_Getting_Warmer - Someone who doesn't care that his partener is cheating.
10 November 2007
at 6:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
camper (Anonymous) says…
Warmer I agree with you. A kickback could never happen in Lawrence. It's mainly just stuff that used to happen and that we occasionally hear about in the national news. Kickbacks really probably just happen in Hollywood on shows like the Sopranos or that one movie with Pacino called the Godfather. I have known friends who have told me about kickbacks that they were offered from county commisioners (but did not take). I didn't believe em tho.
But you are wrong about the tent. Whenever I camp, I sleep outside the tent. The air inside is too depleted and you get too much moisture. Though you have to tend with an occasional racoon, it is far better than being cramped inside a tent.
10 November 2007
at 8:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
coneflower (Anonymous) says…
A deal that costs Lawrence $3 million and doesn't even come with the guarantee Deciphera will stay in Lawrence sounds like a win-win - but only for Deciphera and it investors like Sue Hack.
Not a good deal for the taxpayers and citizens of Lawrence.
10 November 2007
at 9:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…
Politics today. Most every politician has their hands out and is in the bag either for their own personal gain, or their family.
Simply put, in America today our politicians are crooked and corrupt, and the CITY governments are the most corrupt.
10 November 2007
at 11:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LawrenceBoy (Anonymous) says…
She really just needs to step down. After teaching in the Lawrence Public schools for…how many years?…. she needs to remember that her former students are watching and taking notice. Her actions reflect on the City, her family, and the schools. There can be no compromise with principle. Deep down, she must realize this. The sooner she steps down, the sooner we can move on and save ourselves from another such incident.
11 November 2007
at 6:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…
I have to say you people have beaten this dead horse into hamburger. Sure the mayor holding stock and voting could be considered for personal gain. Failure to report is an issue, but the truth is she will be there tomorrow and the day after. The company in question may or may not be here but if they don't that is a loss of jobs and revenue to Lawrence. I doubt the AG is going to do a darn thing about any of this. You will be hard pressed to find no connection to anything voted on by members of the council in a community the size of Lawrence.
11 November 2007
at 7:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gkwhdw (Anonymous) says…
This is why I never vote at election time or anytime: the rich and famous in the big U S of A and the squatty little town of Lawrence, Kansas always seem to end up doing what they want anyway. Seems like when people like Ms. Hack dabble their fingers into something they get caught in, then they run around in circles in a square room trying to find their way out. Everyone else has to pay up when they get caught in the cookie jar,Sue, some of us aren't so lucky to have connections to get out of tight situations, maybe this time you've overstepped your authority?
11 November 2007
at 8:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
coneflower (Anonymous) says…
gkwhdw (Anonymous) says:
This is why I never vote at election time or anytime: the rich and famous in the big U S of A and the squatty little town of Lawrence, Kansas always seem to end up doing what they want anyway.
What could anyone possibly say to you? 20% of the registered voters voted in the current corrupt commission. 20% - and you blithely post that.
You - a non-voter, or a poorly informed voter - are part of the problem.
11 November 2007
at 9:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Oracle_of_Rhode (Anonymous) says…
Definition of “decipher:” Cracking the code; figuring out something's meaning.
Hmmm….
11 November 2007
at 10:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Mkh (Anonymous) says…
its_getting_warmer (Anonymous) says:
“This mistake on an “SSI filing” is news tiny beyond miniscule. Anyone familiar with these filings knows this, but obviously nobody posting here is among those. A stupid unfortunate mistake, but hardly criminal.”
–––––––––––-
What an incredibly naive statement. The law is very clear and Sue broke it, as executive official of the City Commission there is no excuse. Sitting in on non-public meetings on the deal with Deciphera as a stock holder is a serious abuse of power. Many have gone to jail for this very activity.
Sue Hack should resign at once. However, I almost hope she doesn't, so we can blow this investigation wide open and expose this entire corrupt system that has been operating for many many years at the taxpayer's expense.
11 November 2007
at 10:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
pace (Anonymous) says…
sack hack
11 November 2007
at 12:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…
Keep thinking Conspiracy theory.
11 November 2007
at 2:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Mkh (Anonymous) says…
Warmer, you are completely missing the point, the faiure to complete the SSI form is one thing (and is certainly punishable), but this is going wayyyyyy beyond that. It's obvious you are a desperate Hack supporter, so keep spinning it anyway you please…the laws are clear and we see right through you.
11 November 2007
at 3:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blackwalnut (Anonymous) says…
Those who say this was just a little mistake on Sue's part should consider:
When something like this is discovered, it's almost always just the tip of the iceberg.
I predict that Hack will resign quickly, in the hope that people will forget about this. She'll be lucky if this only costs her the elected position.
11 November 2007
at 5:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…
That is not very nice. Maybe the Mayor didn't report but if she is to be held accountable then so should everyone else and if others are not being outed for it why should Sue be outed.
11 November 2007
at 8:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…
Too bad you aren't going to determine the results. Sue will remain without issue, because she can.
11 November 2007
at 9:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
swan_diver (Anonymous) says…
Past time to place a proposition on the local ballot to change the city's form of government to the Mayor-Council-Manager system, and eliminate this out-moded and undemocratic structure inaugurated in 1951 to turn the business of the city over to business, real estate and bankng interests. We need a directly-elected mayor, who's actually responsible to the electorate, and the people — and not just the special interests the city manager's office traditionally referees. This bunch long ago ceased to be able to accomplish anything besides the lining of their own pockets, and those of their friends and families. Business people have been engaged in this practice for centuries. Time to put the breaks on their shameless thievery, and throw most of the bums out.
Sue Hack can serve for nothing on the 'Planning Commission.'
11 November 2007
at 9:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Whaever happened to sticks and pillories?
11 November 2007
at 9:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…
I agree the Mayor should be an elected position, but it isn't here so we have Sue for now and whoever next time around.
11 November 2007
at 10:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
“[T]he law requires elected officials to disclose any ownership interests that are greater than $5,000 in value. Hack said her interest in the company was greater than $5,000 but less than 5 percent of the company's total.” Lets skip the investigation and the trial and lets all just burn the women at the stake for Christ's sake! The PLC/GRA can all dance and sing, “Ding Dong The Wicked Witch of West Lawrence is Dead!
If the Mayor is nothing more than a common shareholder, her holdings are not a significant part of her portfolio, and she received no other direct benefit it is unlikely she will be found guilty of a criminal offense. Even if she is this is merely a distraction from the real problem we have with Lawrence City Government over the last five years. Where have all the tax dollars gone? We could have someone embezzling large sums of money and we would never know, or would find out long after we can do anything about it. Why, why are we kept in the dark?
We need an independent audit of the City of Lawrence's finances covering the last five years. But neither the PLC/GRA “socialist hippies” nor the pro business “developturds” are in the least bit interested. So you have to ask yourself, if Gwen and the PLC/GRA is interested in cleaning out City Hall, why aren't she/they calling for an audit covering the last five years? If the current Mayor has nothing to hide, why isn't she/they calling for an audit as well?
Because the truth of the matter is she/they are BOTH afraid of being shown to be incompetent and wasting tax dollars on their own pet projects. The citizen taxpayers can all go pound sand if they don't like it. After all, what good is it winning a City Commission election if you can't waste taxpayers money on your projects?
But one day Lawrenian's will wake up to the fact they are being played by both sides. These mini soap opera scandals are just a distraction. It isn't right versus left, it us versus them.
11 November 2007
at 11:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
You have to disclose every investment over $5,000? Seems a little extreme doesn't it? I bet Boog's collection of Grateful Dead Tour T-shirts is worth more than that!
Let's say I have 200 shares of both GE and WMT stock. Both investments would be valued at over $5,.000, at least as of Friday's close. Let's say I'm a Commissioner and I want Lawrence to be green and save some green so that we all can be bathed in the green light of Compact Fluorescent Lights. If mention and suggest that GE CFL's can be bought from Walmart cheaper than what the City currently pays for them at Les Merc is this a conflict of interest? What if I fail to mention it and the City continues to waste money with business tied to a previous Mayor and Commissioner's?
In this day and age a $5,000 investment is a trifling. Every member of the Commission past and present sees some gain from their decisions. Anti-Walmart benefited Grocers and lawyers, pro downtown decisions favor barbers, reduced penalties for pot … well you get the idea. The only Commissioner that wouldn't be impacted is a bankrupt deadbeat who hasn't accomplished anything, and who would want someone like that as a Commissioner anyway?
I am no fan of the current Mayor. She reminds me of Pelosi. Boyda, and Ryun. Not very bright, power hungry, and very full of themselves and their own self important, self righteous, political bumper sticker political rhetoric. But honestly, unless the Mayor's holdings amount to a significant percentage of her net worth or is very close to the 5% ownership line, this is a big so what? A stupid decision by a not so bright Mayor. The real issue is why aren't the citizens of Lawrence demanding an audit of the City of Lawrence finances over the last 5 years? While we are all up in arms lets also start worrying about where all the rest of the money has gone and will be going.
11 November 2007
at 11:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
igby (Anonymous) says…
Let me put things in prospective 5% of $3,000,000.00 = $150,000.00
4% of $3,000,000.00= $120,000.00
3% of $3,000,000.00= $90,000.00
2% of $3,000,000.00= $60,000.00
1% of $3,000,000.00= $30,000.00
What is it about Mayor Hack's stock ownership that you don't understand.
Failing to disclosed is the least of her failings. How could she sat there and vote knowing that she was getting paid from the deal.
The city of Lawrence just add to Mayor Hack's stock value and she profited greatly from the deal.
The question is how did and when did she get the stock along with County Comissioner, Bob Johnson.
We want to see the receipts showing that they paid for these stocks and not just recieved them for services rendered.
12 November 2007
at 7:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Oracle_of_Rhode (Anonymous) says…
Sigmund says…
“In this day and age a $5,000 investment is a trifling.”
—
Not for anyone in the lower, middle, or upper-middle class, it isn't. This is an insult brought to you from a moron.
12 November 2007
at 7:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Oracle_of_Rhode (Anonymous) says…
There are intangibles that make me think Deciphera will stay in Lawrence. Deciphera's President and CEO and others in top management went to KU. My guess is they're emotionally attached to Lawrence and want to have their families here and don't want to drive to and deal with Olathe. In addition, KU has great resources and bends over backwards to work with drug discovery firms.
So long as they didn't try to bribe our public officials outright, they should be welcomed with open arms, and given reasonable incentives.
However, the current deal sinks of corruption and is too much of a giveaway of our tax dollars. It needs to be scrapped and reworked in the light of day, with citizen input and knowledge.
In the meantime, Hack and others who operate like her should be forced from office if resignations are not tendered quickly. I hope AG Morrison has the midnight oil burning on this one, because we need state intervention for our local corruption.
13 November 2007
at 2:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
Minority shareholders don't get cash payments because the company received “tax incentives.” Their shares “might” appreciate some but that appreciation is contingent upon selling those shares for more than what they paid for them. Assuming there is a market for the shares, there are no restrictions on the sale and, most importantly, if the company eventually succeeds, that “might” mean a profit. But if the company succeeds the tax incentives accomplished their public purpose, bringing and keeping a successful company in Lawrence.
When I characterized an $5000 as a “trifling” I didn't mean in terms of any individuals net worth but in terms of what this law is meant to protect against, a personal gain large enough to tempt public officials to act in their own interest over the public interest, goals that are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I doubt a $5000 investment that appreciates even 10% because of a City Commissioners non-vote is really all that much of a threat to the City finances.
The real threat continues to be drowned out by the noise, the details of the City of Lawrence's finances are not subject to public scrutiny. For instance, the City pays MV Transportation (another privately held company) one-million-five-hundred-thousand dollars (not tax incentives) each and every year, year after year. Do you know where the City buys its vehicles and how much it pays for them? Could the City get a better deal somewhere other than at Laird Noller? These and thousands of other transactions have a much greater potential for abuse and potential threat to the City than a one time $3,000,000 tax incentive and the Mayors fractional interest.
If taxes are really “investments in Lawrence” shouldn't the Citizens have the right to evaluate all those decisions? Virtually every Commissioner over the last five years got to fund their pet project or hire their favorite private consulting firm. Tax dollars were paid to Johnson County lawyers to fight lawsuits and paid a few downtown landlords (or private holding companies) for new fire sprinklers. So why do the Citizen's of Lawrence have to pay more in taxes, or new taxes, to pave the roads?
Financial “crisis” is constantly claimed as justification, the real issue is why aren't the citizens of Lawrence demanding an audit of the City of Lawrence finances over the last 5 years? What happened to the budget surpluses of just a few years ago? I suspect those that are screaming the loudest over tax incentives are more interested in a personal vendetta than a broader disclosure of where and how all tax revenues are being spent.
You can get all up in arms over a stupid decision by a not so bright Mayor-ette over a drop in the bucket tax incentive, and that is fine. I am much more concerned about where the vast majority of City revenues have gone or will be going in the future. That neither side wants the bright light of an audit shined into the darkness concerns me even more.