Board of Aldermen 10-12-2021 Page 18
Given its first reading; Assigned to the BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE and SCHEDULE A SPECIAL BOARD
OF ALDERMEN PUBLIC HEARING ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 285, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. by President Wilshire
R-21-178
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
Alderman Patricia Klee
Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderman Jan Schmidt
Alderman Skip Cleaver
Alderman Linda Harriott-Gathright
Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire
CHANGING THE USE OF FUNDS FOR A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT FROM MASTER PLAN TO LAND USE CODE UPDATE
Given its first reading; Assigned to the BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE by President Wilshire
NEW BUSINESS — ORDINANCES - None
PERIOD FOR GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
Michael O’Connor
So Michael O'Connor, 42 Berkeley Street. Good evening. I'm here to comment on the assertions made by Mr.
Bolton at your last Board meeting after he interrupted Alderwoman Lu's remarks. Mr. Bolton downplayed the
July 14th Superior Court ruling, which was clearly in favor of Mrs. Ortolano. Alderwoman Lu had attempted to
discuss the ruling against the city. Mr. Bolton started his interruption asserting untrue and then quibbled over
meaningless distinctions and various other grievances.
During this talk over of Alderwoman Lu facilitated by President Wilshere, Mr. Bolton appeared to have been
triggered when the Alderwoman has stated the Legal Department was admonished in the ruling. | quote, “The
Judge did say that the city, not the Legal Department, the city was dilatory in providing those documents.”
Okay, the city was admonished but let's remember that the job of Mr. Bolton is to represent the city. So |
guess the record should show our unadmonished Legal Department served our admonished city poorly. | will
quote a few excerpts from the clear court ruling. “It is undisputed that the city first informed the plaintiff that the
requested files were unavailable due to the corruption of the tape backups nine months after her initial request.
The city's actions or inactions shows that it was disregarding the discovery request or misleading the plaintiff
about the availability of responsive documents. The city has not demonstrated substantial justification for their
conduct. The court notes and admonishes the city for its objection. The court finds the city's objections to go
against the underlying facts. The court also finds the tone of the city's objection concerning. The court is
concerned about the city's candor and if the city attempted in good faith to resolve the dispute. The stark
contrast between the objection and the city's position of the hearing is striking.”
| respectfully submit the five page ruling for your minutes. You would think a Superior Court questioning the
city's candor in good faith would be a worthwhile topic for this Board. One wonders why President Wilshire cut
off discussion of the ruling. The Board should consider a line in the February 9, 2016 Telegraph article which
reported the Mayor's intention to nominate Mr. Bolton for the City Attorney. The Mayor said...
Donna Graham, Legislative Affairs Manager
Thirty seconds.
Michael O’Connor
...| quote, “His team will carefully comply with State Right-to-Know laws and maintain open and transparent
government.” | request this Board and/or the Mayor instruct Mr. Bolton that he should facilitate that stated
