"Council members, for whom [city attorney Mujeeb] Shah-Khan works, didn’t know the contract wasn’t signed."Maybe, but that doesn't mean they weren't informed.
Documents made available by the city include an email from then city manager Denise Turner-Roth sent to council that says:
"I am comfortable moving forward with the first loan installment of $750,000."and
"Legal is working with Museum representatives to finalize an agreement between and the ICRCM that memorializes the terms expressed by Council through its September 3 vote, including how the City's interests will be protected."That second paragraph, records show, was actually included in Roth's email at the suggestion of Shah-Khan. So it may have been a bonehead move to issue a three quarters of a million dollar loan without a contract, but Council cannot pin it all on city attorney Shah-Khan. They were informed what was happening and either did not understand what Roth's email was telling them, did not read it or were okay with it. But they were informed and only because of Shah-Khan's recommendation.
Did any of them object then? Because they sure seem awfully indignant now.
Madam Mayor and Members of the Greensboro City Council,
ReplyDeleteWho among you has seen the actual unsigned original contract between the City of Greensboro and the International Civil Rights Center and Museum (ICRCM) upon which a $750,000 check was issued and cashed?
More importantly: Was the notary seal copied and pasted or was it stamped to the original document?
Greensboro's voters deserve honest answers from each and every member of the Greensboro City Council.
Billy, we're all looking at some form of agreement on the city's website.
ReplyDeleteRoch, thanks. It is my belief that all this reflects badly on council. They knew more than they are saying or should have known.
Thanks, Fec. The city attorney is ill-suited for Greensboro because of the extent to which he goes to frustrate public access to information. He should have been fired when he sued to stop Yes! Weekly from hitting the newsstands.
ReplyDeleteStill, the N&R is wrong to give council an out by ignoring the record that mitigates Shah-Khan's actions and implicates council.
Funny how it is through swift and thorough access to public records that we know that Shah-Khan asked for council to be informed. Under different circumstances, Shah-Khan's office would have "reviewed" the records for months before releasing over-redacted versions.
He should go, but let's be honest about why.