Archive for Thursday, August 16, 2012

Basehor City Council agenda includes $200,000 settlement with former administrator Loughry

Basehor City Hall is at 2620 N. 155th St.

Basehor City Hall is at 2620 N. 155th St.

August 16, 2012

Mark Loughry

Mark Loughry

The agenda for Monday’s Basehor City Council meeting calls for the approval of a $200,000 settlement payment from the city to former administrator Mark Loughry, who was fired 11 months ago.

A settlement agreement, included in the agenda packet for Monday’s meeting, also includes a public apology to Loughry from the city for his firing and the way it was handled, to be entered into the minutes of the meeting.

According to a memo from Interim City Administrator Lloyd Martley, also included with the agenda materials, the settlement was reached in a mediation with Loughry late last month.

In January, Loughry informed the city of his intent to sue for more than $500,000 in damages, accusing the city of public defamation. Loughry was fired in a surprise, split vote in September 2011.

The agenda for Monday’s meeting, 7 p.m. at Basehor City Hall, is below. The full agenda packet, with additional materials, is available for download at left.

Agenda:

Consent agenda

• Approve July 11, 16 and 18 minutes

• Approve treasurer’s report

• Resolution No. 2012-18: Approve pavement management agreement

• Approve standard traffic ordinance

• Approve uniform public offense code ordinance

• Resolution No. 2012-16: Approve ZIP code realignment request

New business

• Settlement of notice of claim

City administrator’s report

• Pinehurst roundabout update

Comments

johninbasehor 1 year, 8 months ago

Well, lets hear from Mertz, Dysart and Box, the former council members, about how there firing of the city manager and publicly defacing his reputation would not cost the city. I guess former Mayor Hill was right about these council members after all. $200,000 plus what, about $200 per hour for the city's legal fees on this matter. I wonder how many hours the city will be billed for? The city got a black eye because of these hick council members that refused to take the legal advice of their own city attorney, but now, they seem to still have an agenda as they continue to post on the Sentinel about the current council and Mayor. I really wish that the city's insurance carrier would sue the former council for not accepting the advice of the city council and bringing on this liability. It serves them right! How many city streets that are gravel could have been paved additionally with this wasted money?

0

johninbasehor 1 year, 8 months ago

Correction: I really wish that the city's insurance carrier would sue the former council for not accepting the advice of the CITY ATTORNEY and bringing on this liability.

0

ProudOfOurCity 1 year, 8 months ago

I agree with you johninbasehor. They should have listened to the former Mayor and followed his guidance. If the council would have listened to him the city would not be paying out an additional $200,000 today. Mayor Hill was elected by the people to represent them. I believe that he did just that. If I remember correctly Mayor Hill was recalled because he tried to pay the original amount owed to Mr. Loughry in order to prevent the lawsuit. Hopefully those who voted for the Mayor's recall now realize he was wrongly accused.

0

enough 1 year, 8 months ago

John and proud i agree. If it was done correctly, it wouldn't have gotten so costly. We voted the previous council in to better the city, not to let their egos swell with power. Kudos to the newcouncil to make an apology to mr. Loughry. To the new council i think u r on the right track im moving forward.

0

Ronald Grover 1 year, 8 months ago

I hope everyone has learned their lesson. There is a tangible cost to putting people in positions in which they are not really qualified and refuse to heed the advice of qualified people. When leaders become obstinate then we all pay.

Granted most of this will probably be paid by the E&O insurance but eventually the taxpayers will be on the hook. When someone pays a direct cost of $200K you can be sure the indirect effects and costs will dwarf the $200K number.

Maybe in a perfect world Dysart, Mertz and Box would be not only morally but also financially responsible for this but in our system their only payback is the loss of their positions. Decisions and actions must have consequences.

0

Thinkaboutit 1 year, 8 months ago

I think we should all take a minute to thank Dennis Mertz! I just wish he was financially responsible for his poor decision and lack of humility. Next time maybe Dennis will listen to attorneys who actually know what they are talking about! Thankfully there is no next time for him in this city.

0

LR 1 year, 8 months ago

Ok, new city council voted on $200,000 AFTER talking to the alleged "victim" who agreed to it. Same scenario as the old city council did with the salary.

"...was recalled because he tried to pay the original amount owed..." Now, is the "victim" going to get the new mayor to change the amount back to the "original amount owed" without the knowledge or approval of the new city council, and then claim "victimhood" again when he gets caught??

  1. Still have never seen ANY legal documents as hard-core, third-party evidence that the city attorney allegedly gave different counsel than what was acted upon with the old city council--changing an already approved contract behind closed doors is still considered illegal every where else. 2. There's been no evidence submitted that there was a gun held to the "victim's" head to sign the approved contract, therefore, 3. changing the amount on the approved contract by his own hand, with his friend, without "discussing" it further with the old city council before touching it, is still considered a crime that requires being fired.

Let's keep the correct perspective here. No matter how many times it gets twisted above with never-ending attacks against those who refused to accept the crime, and continue to ignore the crime that was committed, the truth is still there for all to see.

In fact, it's well known that some con-artists share the spoils with their fellow travelers.

Ok, let's hear from the "victim's" attack-dogs now. Pretty sure too many nerves got hit with the truth. LOL!

0

ProudOfOurCity 1 year, 8 months ago

I wondered when you would slither into this conversation. You can try to muddy up the water with your ridiculous ramblings but you don't even make any sense. You were one of the concerned citizens that orchestrated this whole mess in the first place. Everyone knows you were part of the Mertz, Dysart and Box bunch. Looks like they should have listened to people around them who have a brain instead of your out of touch ego. Once again your hunger for revenge has backfired.

0

johninbasehor 1 year, 8 months ago

LR; you can shoot your mouth off with your opinion all you want, but the end result is your opinion is worth zero, zilch! Attorneys and the insurer themselves have come to the conclusion that your previous council of idiots went too far and libeled the city and its taxpayers to the tune of over $200,000. No charges were ever brought against anybody because most believed that the family insurance thing should have been in the contract of the city manager in the first place. Now after paying for that mistake, the present council will have to figure out how to get the asbestos out of those buildings that your previous council of idiots procured that sit where the new city hall is to be built without costing the city another hundred thousands of dollars.

0

LR 1 year, 8 months ago

We were not here when all the stuff mentioned above was going on. It's obvious there's a labeling of people who disagree with the questionable antics/corruption, and are being put into this so-called "Washington and/or Mertz-Dysart-Box group," just like high-school kids, so that the opposition can be the "cool group." Ignoring the name calling, here's the dumbed-down version: • Loughry was caught red-handed, at the very least, guilty of unethical behavior, at the most, contract fraud. Don't begrudge somebody at all for wanting better health insurance, but somebody in charge of an entire city should know legal and appropriate ways to do things. • From reading since first came out, it appears the prior city council, two of whom were recalled for not accepting the contract fraud, with the third one quitting because he didn't want to be party to a--quote/unquote, "corrupt city administration any longer," had plenty of "discussions" with Loughry, and plenty of warnings before actually firing him. Otherwise, why the city attorney called in? Safe to assume, Loughry refused to follow what the city attorney's counsel was to him, therefore got fired as last resort. • "...No charges were ever brought against anybody because most believed that the family insurance thing should have been in the contract of the city manager in the first place..." The only punishment given was for those who refused to be party to the fraud and unprofessional behavior that was committed. The former council, morally and ethically correct, but they got taken out for it anyway. A blind eye could've got them "good ol' boys' big happy family," but they chose to do what was right. • Former City Manager disagreed with the prior city council, who were trying to save money for the city, and usually, a new job starts out that way, with extra benefits added later when the employer can afford it. AFTER agreeing to the final amount with the prior council, Loughry still wanted the "original" amount, and that was his justification for editing his own contract, and then cries about getting fired after he defied his own bosses, the city council. So he filed a notice of claims when he was the one doing something wrong, but he still gets off scot-free, "no charges," and a nice pay day for screwing up!! (((Nothing I have read to date shows that this city cares to follow any type of termination protocol.)))

0

LR 1 year, 8 months ago

• Ironic, isn't it, that the new city council is "worried" about not having enough money to build a new city hall, that's not needed at all. But when the old city council was worried about not having enough money to cover the then-new-city manager's extra benefits at that time, then that's different--double standards. • Bottom line: The former city manager got rewarded handsomely, $16k, $50k, and soon to be $200k, with our tax dollars for doing something wrong, contract fraud, plain and simple as that. The current city manager/police chief is also getting rewarded. We have been paying him extra for over a year, putting him in charge over notice of claims/lawsuits/ settlements against him and the city (and who knows what else), several new patrol cars driving around Falcon Lakes and sitting on the highway, pay raises for everyone including all the managers, etc. etc., during a recession, no less. Get a clue! • I was talking with several acquaintances on Wednesday, and ALL of us are very disappointed in our local news and this newspaper's very obvious lack of impartial reporting. I have literally lost count of the news stories on Loughry. I checked the other day and only found four stories on two former police officers with lawsuits over five years ago and two employees that look to have been terminated without cause. I think we all know why the former police officer Corey’s case was kept secret and had to be published in a community website (pathetic and disturbing). Shame on the reporters of today (or lack thereof). Years ago a police officer or fireman were pillars of the community and people cared about them. Today, if you have a title, and even do something wrong, you get article after article, and maybe even taxpayer money. The only way cops make the news today is to kill someone, or get caught by channel 5 not wearing their seatbelt. What the heck is wrong with our society today? • Truly hope our children in Basehor don’t grow up with the kind of backward views that have been displayed here.

0

ProudOfOurCity 1 year, 8 months ago

LR, You stated you did not live here when all of the above happened. So you really have no idea what you are talking about. You should spend more time talking to both sides and get the real and complete facts. Others keep putting you in with the the Mertz, Dysart and Box group because you sound exactly like them. Maybe you are not. But you need to research the whole history and quit listening to others.

0

LR 1 year, 8 months ago

What? Just reading the Sentinel coverage of "both sides" isn't enough? The above condensed version came straight from the Sentinel, albiet paraphrased for briefness.

Thanks to a poster, we found the community website that had more info, and that was VERY disturbing to read, but worse was to see that professionals we elected were/are ignoring the well-documented abuse of innocent victims, turning their backs on them, and defending their abusers.

Did the old city council know about all those documents (former city attorney's tons of legal documents, the former city PD officer's Notice of Claims, etc.) before they got posted, and then keep them from the public until their recalls? Or were these documents kept from the old city council until the recalls? None of the former city council has ever answered that question directly and publicly--such as, what did they know and when did they know it?

Lots of unanswered questions, and the new city council is not building trust and credibility with what they're doing by ignoring it either, now that the elephant is still in the living room since the recalls.

0

StandforSomething 1 year, 8 months ago

Good question. Did Mertz-Dysart-Box-Hill-Loughry-Breuer-Miles, know about the legal documents before getting posted, and who posted them? How did they get those kinds of documents to post in the first place (former city attorney, former PD employee, etc.)?

Logic says they had to be part of the city somehow in order to have them to post on the website, so why wouldn't they have posted them for the public long before the recall?? Might have made a difference in the recall outcome if the public had known about those documents beforehand.

Example, 2 different sources, the former city attorney talks about the HR person getting fired by Loughry for doing her job, and then Loughry tried to mess up the severence pay to her and had to be corrected by the former city attorney, and then the former PD employee mentions the same thing about the HR clerk getting fired by Loughry for doing her job in that Nov. Notice of Claims.

Two different sources, neither appearing to be collaborating, makes it appear very credible. Therefore, why would the former city council refuse to be part of Loughry's "edited contract," but allow the HR person, the former PD employee, and the former city attorney to get screwed?

And we remember reading some previous poster named "basehordreams" mentioning that there have been several PD employees (including the former PD chief?!?!) screwed out of their job by the current chief. To my knowledge he's never answered the earlier posted questions about what training and experience he's had to be both city administrator and city chief, so who's his "puppet master" that got him both jobs, and keeping him there against all protocol, plus the "power" to screw other PD employees out of their jobs?

0

Lookyhere 1 year, 8 months ago

Unbelieveable. How can any City be so stupid and gullible to let a crook like Mark Loughry steal them blind to the tune of a quarter of a million dollars? This guy is a sociopath who preys on the week, stupid, nimble minded idiots which generally run a small city.

0

johninbasehor 1 year, 8 months ago

It is called the law. This man was libeled publicly by your previous council. The powers to be have determined this. You cannot just libel yourself with nothing to back it up or you will be sued, which has happened. The council cannot be above the law.

0

MzR 1 year, 8 months ago

How do you know all that you're saying, or are you just blowing off steam over a traffic ticket?

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.