SEARCH
 
 


 
 
Money Wasted

Lake Worth Utilities
Waste Meter
$50,000
... for an arc flash study that Mr. Reyes was qualified to do in house and at no cost to taxpayers.
$200,000
... the estimated engineering cost of the express feeder which could also be done in house at no cost to taxpayers.
$591,898
... wasted when insurance requirements were circumvented by the city manager and utility director.
$123,098
... wasted when plant manager Dave Mulvay’s first attempt at writing a scope of work contained a defect that cost taxpayers an extra $123,098 for tainting the bidding process and giving unfair advantage to one bidder over another. - April 2009
$64,000
... wasted when the Matrix organizational study to save taxpayers money was scrapped in favor of higher cost outsourcing by city manager Stanton.
$450,000
... wasted engineering design cost of water piping and tanks (original county water deal) that will never be built.
$59,975
... wasted when additional costs were incurred for not following insurance procedure on transformer repair.
$82,620
... wasted when the commission unanimously voted to order transformers when we had equivalent replacements already in stock since the upgrade. - 15 Sep. 2009
Total Taxpayer Dollars Wasted:
$1,621,591
 
 

 
 
LWM Menu

· Home
· Advertising
· Authors and Articles
· AvantGo
· Downloads
· FAQ
· Feedback
· Forums
· Groups
· HTML Newsletter
· Journal
· Recommend Us
· Search
· Statistics
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
 
 

 
 
Who's Online

There are currently, 18 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are an Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
 
 

 
 
Site Info

Your IP: 54.224.235.183

Welcome, Anonymous
· Secure Login/Registration
· Forgot Password?
Server Date/Time
25 June 2018 10:46:14 EST
 
 

 
  On File: McCauley McNamara suit - commentary
Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2007 @ 21:14:24 EST by admin

Lake Worth SunnyDaze writes:  

If the McCauley/McNamara case is as the outside attorney for the city of Lake Worth says "...a meritless attempt" and not supported by material facts or the law. And if, as this attorney says; a "bevy" of associate attorneys asserted they were intimately familiar with every detail of the contract and the ordinance in question… why are they now saying they need more time to study the ordinance and the contract they just said they knew intimately? Here is a chronological account of this interesting shift from haughtiness and blowing it off as nothing to a more respectful ‘we need more time to think this over.’

April 30, 2007

Lawyer Crane, an associate in the law firm founded by lawyer William Boose, (now facing corruption charges), and an outside attorney for The City of Lake Worth, responds to a notice of legal action from Plaintiff’s (McCauley/McNamara) attorney that the City is in violation of its Charter:

"I do wish to point out to you that the Ground Lease Agreement and the Development Agreement referred to therein were very meticulously negotiated, discussed and prepared by not only myself but a bevy of other extremely experienced real estate attorneys and professionals, all of whom were very much aware of the March 9, 2004-referendum amending the Lake Worth City Charter in the manner set forth in your letter. Please be advised that the City stands by its actions with respect to the two referenced agreements and considers your client' collective threats to be nothing more than a meritless attempt to bring forward a claim that is not supported by material facts or the application of existing law to those material facts.”

In response to this:

The Plaintiffs, McCauley & McNamara hire the well established and highly respected firm, LEWIS, LONGMAN & WALKER, P.A., to assist their attorney, Ms. West, as co-counsel, in order to confirm the validity of their claim.

then

Attorneys for citizens McCauley and McNamara file suit which is received by the City on June 19, 2007. The following reply is received by the plaintiff’s attorneys on July 9, 2007.

July 9, 2007

"In connection with this claim, the undersigned will be required to review the contracts themselves, Ordinance 2003-07 and speak with various City employees and staff members in order to formulate the City's response to the complaint. In addition to the above, the undersigned has been recently retained and simply cannot complete its obligations to properly respond to the Complaint in the time frame currently allotted. As a result the undersigned requests a thirty day ( 30) extension of time in which to file and serve the Defendant's Answer or appropriate motion in the above-styled cause.”

My comment:

As Attorney Crane said in paragraph #1, all agreements “were very meticulously negotiated, discussed and prepared by myself and a bevy of other extremely experienced real estate attorneys and professionals, all who were very much aware of the March 9, 2004 referendum amending the Lake worth City Charter.”

WHY THEN, THE NEED FOR A 30 DAY EXTENSION IF THE CITY’S ATTORNEYS REALLY DID THE WORK? OR COULD THIS JUST BE A PLOY TO STRING THIS OUT TO FLEECE THE TAXPAYERS FOR BIG LEGAL FEES?


 
 

 
 
McCauley McNamara suit - commentary | Login/Create an Account | 1 comment | Search Discussion
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.
 
 

 
 

No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

 
 

 
 

Re: McCauley McNamara suit - commentary (Score: 1)
by oscar_night on Friday, August 17, 2007 @ 16:47:44 EST
(User Info | Send a Message)

Apparently they did not reply within the 30 days that they requested. What now?




 
 

 
 
 
Related Links

· More about Lake Worth
· News by admin


Most read story about Lake Worth:
WASTED MILLIONS PURSUING GROWTH - by William Coakley

 
 

 
 
Article Rating

Average Score: 5
Votes: 3



To rate this article please Login first


 
 

 
 
Options


 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly

 
 

 
 
Associated Topics

Lake Worth
 
 



 
 
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest is editorial © 2007 by William Coakley and unauthorized use is prohibited by law. Anybody who uses, copies or distributes this material in any manner, for commercial or personal purposes, without written permission, would be committing an infringement of copyright.
You can syndicate our news using the file backend.php or ultramode.txt


PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2004 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.
Page Generation: 0.07 Seconds