Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Ethics’ Category

What is it about every election season that career politicians deny what they have already made public comments about?   Some say the “water”?  Some say Party alignment?  I tend to think it’s about getting re-elected because most voters have become or more dangerously choose to be  ignorant beyond YARD SIGNS.

A recent 28 minute video was released by KCPT recorded during a discussion with the 3 Johnson County Chair Person Candidates.  In subsequent postings between now and the end of the month, NOlathe will share smaller snippents of what they said while actively pursuing an agenda versus what they are saying during the Primary as candidates.

 

“Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Anyone Who Threatens It”
Ken Dunwoody                                 GOD
Henpecked Acres                  One Nation
14850 W. 159th St.
Olathe, Ks. 66062
(913)768-1603
kdunwoody2@aol.com
http://NOlathe.net

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

UPDATE: As of July 21, 2014 and THANKS to Sheriff Denning and Commissioner Allen this document and discussion is now posted at 

http://www.jocosheriff.org/index.aspx?page=267

This document was paid for by us folks, belongs as property to us folks and now shared with us folks.

I acknowledge warnings from both BKD and Johnson County NOT to share this information obtained from a lawful Kansas Open Records Act (KORA) request.

BKD Intro

 

The accompanying report is quite revealing and makes clear why “Independent Audits” are necessarily and by definition INDEPENDENT.   JCSOJuly2nd-ResponsetoDiscussionPaper

Possibly the most valuable document we have mined, our Constitutionally Elected Sheriff was correct while Standing At The Gate.

 

“Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Anyone Who Threatens It”
Ken Dunwoody                                               GOD
Henpecked Acres                            One Nation
14850 W. 159th St.
Olathe, Ks. 66062
(913)768-1603
kdunwoody2@aol.com
http://NOlathe.net

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

img008

Read Full Post »

Johnson County is the most populated county in Kansas and the only county in the State to have a statutory Home Rule Charter approved by the voters in 2002.  During 2011 a Home Rule Charter Commission was convened to evaluate the functionality after 10 years.  Following this year-long review, no changes were recommended.

Late in December 2013 the Johnson County Board of County Commissioners voted to rewrite the Home Rule Charter without voter approval.  In early 2014 a lawsuit was filed in District Court requesting the Court to uphold the authority of the voter approved Home Rule Charter.  District Court ruled against the voters.

MemorandumDecisiongrantingdefendants’motiontodismiss

As in Washington, voters are left with a Home Ruler Charter.

 

“Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Anyone Who Threatens It”
Ken Dunwoody                                   GOD
Henpecked Acres                            
One Nation
14850 W. 159th St.
Olathe, Ks. 66062
(913)768-1603
kdunwoody2@aol.com
http://NOlathe.net

 

Read Full Post »

During the 2013 Five Year Planning Sessions, the Solid Waste Management Committee did allow public input from citizens present.  When Mr. Dennis Batliner and Mr. David Losey began supplying statistics that contradicted information supplied by County Staff, the Committee was faced with some serious decisions.

Solution-  The Chairperson along with County Staff changed the Committee’s By-Laws making the public input under the discretion of the Chairperson. Batliner and Losey have been virtually silenced.

On February 6, 2014 an Ethics Complaint JOCOSWMCcomplaint–Jorke was filed with the County Board of County Commissioners.

On April 10, 2014 during a public meeting the BOCC addressed this complaint captured in this 4 minute video.

Two weeks later, County Staff addressed this complaint.

Loseyltr4-21-14

Jarrett.1 jarrett.2

The Ethics Complaint was filed with the County Board of County Commissioners per established policy.

VI. ETHICS ADVISORY BOARD

The Ethics Advisory Board shall be a standing committee, established by the Board of County Commissioners, composed of the following designated members:

1. The Director of Personnel for the County, or their designee;

2. The Chief Counsel for the County, or their designee;

3. The District Attorney for the County, or their designee; and

4. The County Clerk, or their designee.

.

The Chief Counsel does not have the policy authority to rule on an Ethics Complaint.  In the absence of an Executive Session since April 10, 2014 the Chief Counsel does not have the policy authority to speak for the BOCC.  A reasonable person would conclude the Ethics Complaint has not been legally responded to but is more of a decision made by Chairman Eilert.  The only thing compliant is the other six commissioners.

“Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Anyone Who Threatens It”
Ken Dunwoody                                                           GOD
Henpecked Acres                                      One Nation
14850 W. 159th St.
Olathe, Ks. 66062 (913)768-1603
kdunwoody2@aol.com
http://NOlathe.net

 

Read Full Post »

“Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Anyone Who Threatens It”
Ken Dunwoody                                  GOD
Henpecked Acres                    One Nation
14850 W. 159th St.
Olathe, Ks. 66062
(913)768-1603
kdunwoody2@aol.com
http://NOlathe.net

 

Read Full Post »

During his 1995 US Congressional District 3 primary, it was alleged that Mayor Eilert had his Police Chief conduct an illegal FBI criminal background check on opponent Patrick.  US Court dismissed the resulting lawsuit following an “out of court settlement”.  Prior to the settlement, Judge Vratil ordered the files sealed so as not to negatively influence the public at Eilert’s request.  Following the settlement, KC Star filed a lawful KORA request with the City of Overland Park for attorney billing information.  Eilert’s refusal made it’s way to the Kansas Supreme Court and provides the last date on The Act itself.

Cypress Media v. City of Overland Park

 

Cypress Media v. City of Overland Park was a case before Kansas Supreme Court in 2000 concerning the request for release of attorney billing statements.

Important precedents

This case established that exemptions for attorney-client privilege must be defended on a document by document basis, with each justification establishing why that particular document is to be considered confidential attorney communication.

Background

  • Cypress Media, or the Kansas City Star, requested of the City of Overland Park all billing statements from 1996 for attorney services provided to the city by outside firms.
  • The city responded to the requests by giving the star redacted copies of billing information which included the date of the work, the name of the firm, and the amount billed, including attorney fees and expenses. The information that was redacted under the attorney-client privilege exemption was descriptions of the services and descriptions of the legal issues on which the attorney’s had worked. The city claimed the attorney-client privilege material was exempt under Kansas Open Records statute 1998 Supp. 45-221(a), which exempts all things which are exempted under evidence and discovery rules.
  • The Star sued and the trial court, after much debate, ruled in favor of the Star and ordered un-redacted copies of all the documents the Star had requested to be released.
  • The City appealed the decision.

Ruling of the court

The trial court first established that a blanket exception for attorney-client privilege could bot be applied as all communications between attorneys and clients did not relate to legal advice. The court ordered the city to compile a line by line list of the documents in question they wished to remain exempt and justify that exemption for each document separately. The city released a number of documents but established a codified system for exempting a larger portion of the documents, again relying on the attorney-client privilege exemption found in the Kansas Open Records Act. The court determined that it had not met the court’s requirement of a line by line justification for exemption and ordered the release of all of the documents. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court and ordered the documents released. The Supreme Court first rejected the City’s claim of an expansive attorney-client privilege exemption which includes all communication between attorneys and clients. It however, also rejected the Star’s contention that only communication concerning legal advice constituted an exception under attorney-client privilege. Instead, the court affirmed the decision of the trial court to order a line by line justification of the exemptions, bearing in mind that material that is exempt under the attorney-client privilege is not only material relating to legal advice but any material that would reveal reasons for consulting the lawyer, or courtroom strategies. The court also felt that the same standard of analysis should be applied on a case by case basis to determine if the materials fall under the exemption for attorney work product, as the city argues they should. Finally, the court reiterated the opinion of the trial court that the exemptions mentioned required specific line by line justification for exemption. A mere mention of the statute used to exempt the materials is identical to the broad statutory interpretation the city urged, which would render all attorney-client communication exempt. The court thus affirmed all the decisions of the lower court and declared that it was well within its jurisdiction to order the documents released.

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 42 other followers