“CHEAP SHOT” RETRACTED

Some readers may have noticed that the second to last paragraph of “Kimball to City Commission: More to City Employees, Less to City Residents” reads differently.  Others may have noticed a comment to that article from Leonard Grotenrath doesn’t seem to make sense.  That’s because I deleted a sentence stating that outspoken City Commissioner Rick Tormala had been compromised by his recent acceptance of personal financial assistance from union officials who had business with the city government and did not raise at the planning retreat the issue of city employees giving up part of their compensation from the taxpayers to cover the $5.7 million in extra health care benefits that the city government will have to pay out over the course of the next year.

After speaking to Commissioner Tormala on Wednesday, I made the deletion for three reasons.  First, I concede that my abbreviated reference to being compromised could have read as knowledge that Tormala had acted unethically by accepting cash gifts from special interests.  Because I do not claim such knowledge and have no reason to believe that is the case, it made sense to remove a sentence that was secondary to the point of the article.  To be clear about this, there are three levels of concern when it comes to conflicts of interest:  Apparent conflicts, actual conflicts, and actual conflicts that result in a violation of a public or fiduciary duty.  I had thought, and still think, that Tormala had an apparent conflict of interest, which can be politically (not ethically) compromising absent a persuasive explanation, but no more.

That apparent conflict arose from Tormala’s acceptance of a check from the Knights of Columbus to help him with personal financial troubles.  That’s because persons who have business with the city government were involved in raising that money for Tormala.  However, it is no doubt true, as Tormala says, any such persons who did so were friends of his and acting as friends (plus there were many other contributors who were strictly friends), and so that doesn’t mean the conflict is an actual one or that Tormala has acted improperly as a city official as a consequence of accepting the gifts.  Nevertheless, an apparent conflict of interest remains a legitimate concern for a person who has public or professional obligations, and the burden is upon that person to show that the conflict is only apparent and not real.  Tormala met that burden with me, but it might be wise for him to clarify the matter with the public at large.  That’s his call, not mine.

Second, I deleted the sentence because Tormala said that he did discuss the possibility of city employees making concessions to pay for the $5.7 million increase in their health care benefits.  While I am still not clear as to how extensively, or even seriously, a concession was discussed at the planning retreat, because it was, my statement that it hadn’t was false.  So, whatever merit my point about Tormala’s apparent conflict of interest had, it was no longer relevant to the subject of the article.  So it had to go.

Third, while it is the purpose of the Local Area Watch to report conflicts of interest, both apparent and actual, it is not our purpose to do so as personal attacks.  Tormala said that my statement in the original article was a “cheap shot” and an attack upon him and his family.  As already explained above, it wasn’t a personal attack.  However, my slapdash wording could have been reasonably read as such, at least in regard to Tormala himself.  (There was, of course, no mention of his family.)  When a statement of ours looks to have only the purpose of a personal attack rather than calling attention to a legitimate issue, it does not serve our purposes -- or simple justice -- to defend it.  Better to toss it into the dumper, make the necessary apologies, and clear the record.  After all, we at the Local Area Watch are well aware of how damaging false statements about personal honesty and integrity can be.

For example, on one front, the Toxic Towers scandal, we have worked tirelessly for six years to get the authorities to respond to the deliberate exposure of hundreds of construction workers and members of the public to toxic concentrations of hazardous materials released from the old Berkey & Gay furniture factory site during the construction of the Boardwalk project.  We put together evidence, including scientific soil testing, videotapes and photographs, and sworn testimony, that beyond a reasonable doubt proves what we have charged.  Even so, attorneys representing powerful interests in town –- e.g., Fifth Third Bancorp, Dykema Excavators, and the City of Grand Rapids -– have been willing to make knowingly false statements (sorry for the legalese, folks, let’s just be blunt: to lie) to state regulators and the courts to stop our efforts.  They have defamed us as liars and malefactors to keep a lid on this scandal.  Fortunately, the weight of evidence is finally coming to bear and the truth is getting out, but only after we have had to pay a great personal and financial price to clear the record and, in the process, clear our names.

Unlike Tormala’s complaint, the false statements about our personal honesty and integrity have carried the weight of officialdom behind them.  While Tormala can talk to a constituent like me and not only get a fair hearing but corrective action, it’s not a two-way street.  While I can spit in the wind during the open-mike session of a City Commission meeting, I cannot get any city official, including my elected representatives, to meet with me to get a falsified record against us corrected.  The response is always the same, “The City Attorney’s office won’t let us.”  Of course, it is the City Attorney’s office that is one of the culprits in this matter.  So, I fully sympathize with Commissioner Tormala’s concern and frustration with false charges against his integrity.  He can be assured that whatever we can do to fix a mistake, we will do it.

Thus, my “cheap shot” is officially and gladly retracted.

Comments

[Mary from MI]

Hello Bill...

Sounds like you did the right thing.

Hope the city gives you equal rights with them in time...but, don't hold your breath!

[The Editor - Bridget]

Hi Mary,

I'm responding for Bill as he has been busy with outside projects for a few weeks and has been called away off and on. Hope you don't mind.

As to the issue at hand and your reply, I want to make sure you don't give up on justice, even if it takes a long time to get it.

The biggest issue with telling the truth (about the dumping scandal at the B & G Factory - we call it Toxic Towers)...is getting those who lied and covered up wrong doings to admit what was done. So far, they won't come clean. Their lawyers have made serious attempts for over seven years from even keeping us from being allowed to bring evidence into the legal system.

Keeping us out of court is priority number one for them.

They know if we get before a judge and jury and they see with their own eyes and hear with their own ears what was done...they are sunk.

The bad guys have everything riding on making sure that never happens.

We are ever hopeful that in time the courts will allow us to bring to light the video tape evidence, the environmental reports and altered affidavits so, the citizens can see what was truely done.

As always, it's the cover up that's much, much worse than the actual deed first done.

There are good people in this city who care about what happened but, are too afraid to speak out (understandably). There are those who have tried to help but, it hasn't done them any good (that's unfortunate). And then, there are those who are fighting us at every turn to make sure bad deeds rule the day (they know who they are).

In the end we keeping persevering because we know that there's a big difference in this world between 'doing the right thing' versus 'just doing things right'.

Like the Maytag repair man, it's a lonley job but, someone has got to do it.

We'll keep you and our readers posted as we can.