No good deed goes unpunished. We have been asking for the city to come clean on DACHA for quite some time. And in a remarkable step for a public agency facing multiple lawsuits, the City of Davis released a strong statement about DACHA on Thursday morning that was covered in an article and an op-ed in the Enterprise, and an op-ed in the Vanguard.
Unfortunately, what transpired late on Thursday will undoubtedly muddy an already unclear record. There can be little doubt that Harriet Steiner, the city attorney, if she were monitoring the exchange between Councilmember Stephen Souza and the principals David Thompson and Luke Watkins, was thinking this is precisely why I do not want such statements to be made.
As I have stated on numerous occasions – my interest in DACHA is to find out what happened and to uncover the truth. David Thompson and Luke Watkins have been given space on the Vanguard to respond on their own. This article only attempts to set the record straight, as I know the facts to be right now.
The headlines in the Davis Enterprise read, “Two city settlement offers over DACHA rebuffed.”
The city op-ed reported, “In April 2010, prior to the City foreclosing on the DACHA units due to delinquency on mortgage payments due the City, Councilmember Stephen Souza, on behalf of the City Council, conveyed a settlement offer to Neighborhood Partners and Twin Pines of $300,000.”
However, David Thompson quickly produced an email from April 12, 2010 suggesting that at their April 11, 2010 meeting Stephen Souza was “not acting on behalf of the City Council or Redevelopment Agency.”
In a phone conversation with Mr. Souza to clarify that the meeting was initially as described in the email, however, council in closed session authorized him to make the offer on behalf of the council and that was conveyed to David Thompson and Luke Watkins at the time of the meeting.
My memory was apparently fuzzy (not surprising for people who know me), but I had completely forgotten an email exchange I had with Councilmember Souza back in April 2010.
On April 24, 2010 he emailed me and said, “Hi David, in the interest of looking forward not backward and everyone buys their peace and then walks away, I, not the City or Agency, put forward a framework for settlement. I facilitated a meetings with Cat, David and Luke to work on it. The framework is still on the table as far as I am concerned.”
The first “Hi David” refers to me rather than David Thompson. He would later send me the framework.
So two weeks later, Mr. Souza was still describing the meeting as initiated by him.
Mr. Souza attempts to clarify in a comment last night, in which he states, “At the meeting of April 11th I was not acting on behalf of the City Council. After reporting back to the Council [on] the specifics of a settlement offer, an offer on behalf of the City Council was made in the month of April. That offer was not accepted.”
After numerous conversations last night, the best I have been able to piece together is that Stephen Souza met with the principals in an effort to bring resolution to the matter. The offer that was extended was his.
It is believed that he did go back to council and council basically told him that if he could get a deal, great, any deal you make has to go back to council for approval anyway. It is believed there was never any kind of formal offer or action by the council, but they did not attempt to prevent Mr. Souza from trying to broker a deal.
In a strictly technical sense, it appears from this conversation – which is notably fuzzy to begin with – that there probably was not a formal offer extended at that time from the city.
However, from a realistic standpoint, had Mr. Thompson and Mr. Watkins chosen to agree to the offer on the table or perhaps a compromise version of it, Mr. Souza could have taken the offer back to council and they would have decided if they approved of it.
So in a way this is all about semantics.
Now, as it turned out, the settlement offer was not agreeable to all parties anyway. Mr. Thompson and Mr. Watkins, in their op-ed, can probably explain why that is.
The problem as I understand it is that the first provision was “NP agrees to compromise its judgment at $300,000” which I believe was acceptable to Neighborhood Partners (NP).
But the third provision was, “Twin Pines agrees to dismiss its lawsuit with prejudice and agrees to full waivers as set forth above.”
However, that was not acceptable to Twin Pines.
At that point, provision four stated, “Agency agrees to release the requested reserve money and to work with DACHA to put loan back in good standing. Sale in foreclosure would be cancelled upon execution of formal settlement. It would be postponed if there were agreed upon deal points.”
In other words, that settlement offer would have prevented the foreclosure and ultimate disillusion of DACHA.
Again, this appears to be mostly a matter of semantics. Realistically, there was an offer on the table that council might have and perhaps would have agreed to had it been acceptable, but it was not. I will add that Mr. Souza appears to have met with the principals in good faith with the sincere intention to do as he suggested – put this behind everyone.
The explanation of that will be left to Mr. Thompson and Mr. Watkins to explain, and community members will have the opportunity to accept or reject that explanation.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]“On April 24, 2010 he emailed me and said, “Hi David, in the interest of looking forward not backward and everyone buys their peace and then walks away, I, not the City or Agency, put forward a framework for settlement. I facilitated a meetings with Cat, David and Luke to work on it. The framework is still on the table as far as I am concerned.”[/quote]David, please provide link to your report on this two years ago. Depending on what you wrote, you might be the key to whether NP/TP understood that the city supported the offer that Stephen said was “still on the table.”
What do you have that indicates whether NP/TP and DACHA understood and declined? I agree that what we’ve seen looks like good faith efforts on both sides at the time.
What is fascinating is the difference in the parties’ memories (or at least their accounts) of what happened two years ago. I think calling it “mostly a matter of semantics” understates the magnitude of the missed opportunities, given the seriousness and expense of this whole business.
Hoping that Thompson/Watkins can explain what happened certainly is wishful thinking. Right now, it appears they’re saying that the councilman hasn’t provided an accurate copy of the email (with the alleged answer, “No,” to the question about whether the council had acted). Do you have copies from 2010 of the emails under dispute?
It’s obvious to me that, even accepting Councilor Souza’s version of the email that he did not verify there was any change in the personal, unofficial nature of his resolution effort. We can better understand when he posts the rest of the exchange with DACHA and NP/TP
You conclusion that this would have changed the eventual outcome for DACHA is very speculative and flies in the face of all the recent discussion about how the project was being managed and that is was a “failed model.” If the board (legal or not) and the city continued on the same track (with NP/TP out of the picture), everything Sue and others have contended suggests it would have been in trouble again.
[quote]“However, that was not acceptable to Twin Pines.”[/quote] True? What was DACHA rep.’s response? Anything in writing?
The history and context of the DACHA issue does take time to fully grasp. But on the issue of the offer in the spring of 2010, if a single council member wasn’t authorized to carry an offer forward, there would have been immediate clarification by the full Council or our attorney. If the recipient of the offer needed clarification, all they needed to do is ask.
If you can take the time, visit [url]http://cityofdavis.org/cmo/dacha/#addtl[/url] This includes the full Council statement, and key documents that review the situation. In particular, I would recommend the documents not written by the City — especially the 2011 Grand Jury report. For those who seek to have more public money spent to review this matter, please make sure the existing reviews don’t address your questions.
Clearly the 4/24 e-mail from Stephen still asserting that he spoke only for himself is illuminating.
Keep in mind that the City was set to foreclose on 4/22. They claimed that their offer was an attempt to forestall the foreclosure, yet they had not even put it in writing speaking clearly on their own behalf by the date of the proposed foreclosure.
However I agree that the debate over whether Stephen made an official offer from the City is a sideshow from the key task of examining whether Stephen’s offer was meaningful.
The offer:
Stephen offered to roughly pay the balance of NP’s judgement, drawing out the payment over a number of years, taking into account no time value of money for that delay. That was certainly a meaningful proposal.
However, he offered absolutely nothing to Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation. No legal fees even. And he linked that nonprofit organization dropping its lawsuit to NP getting paid its $300,000.
What in this proposal would cause the Board of Directors of Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation to support it?
When I heard Stephen’s proposal, I was mystified why he thought that I could persuade the Foundation to drop its lawsuit so that I could get paid.
And the implication that David T. should even approach that Board, which he is the President of, with an offer for them to drop their lawsuit, so that he could personally get paid, was very very odd.
On Wednesday morning 4/14, the day after a Council meeting, David Thompson did exactly what Joe Krovoza suggested we do. Stephen had told us on 4/11 that he did not speak for the City. In an e-mail on 4/14 David asked Stephen if the Council had taken action the night before on DACHA. Stephen replied “No.” And he subsequently continued to say that he did not speak for the City.
Were we instead supposed to call up the City Manager or City Attorney every few days to find out whether Stephen was really now speaking on behalf of the City, when he said that he wasn’t?
Thanks to David Greenwald’s efforts, the City was recently forced to disclose that it has spent more than $435,000 on legal fees. Previously it had been hiding this fact. To have racked up such a large legal bill, without ever making an offer to settle the matter, looks very irresponsible. Thus the City is now motivated to claim that it did make such an offer in April 2010.
Conveniently, they have left out the detail that they offered Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation absolutely nothing. I’m curious how Joe Krovoza thinks that was a meaningful offer. Perhaps he will explain it to readers here.
Bottom line – the City/a CC member reached out to effect a settlement on the DACHA issue – and were summarily rejected by Thompson/Watkins. The nonsense about emails is just one more red herring in a plethora of the same. As Mayor Krovoza correctly/astutely states:
[quote]If the recipient of the offer needed clarification, all they needed to do is ask. [/quote]
The burden was on Thompson/Watkins to ask for clarification once offers by the City/a CC member were made.
“If the recipient of the offer needed clarification, all they needed to do is ask. “
What has been posted so far that suggests to you:
1. That the recipient did not ask for clarification? Stephen and David T. agree that he did in the email which Stephen used to send along his framework, seemingly documented in the subject line.
2. That NP/TP was told that Stephen’s framework no longer was his own (not approved by the council/RDA), but an official offer? Nothing that’s been posted supports that–certainly not Stephen’s posted email and most certainly David T.’s posted excerpt of the same email (“No….”)
3. That, given the above, any additional clarification could have been seen as needed? Everything we’ve read seems to confirm that the framework could not have been viewed by the recipients as anything but Stephen’s personal attempts to move along some satisfactory resolution.
You suggest that the “full council or our attorney” would have issued “an immediate clarification.” Is such a clarification from 2010 on file? Stephen obviously was operating in such an independent capacity (“a single council member (who) wasn’t authorized to carry an offer forward” by his own email account disavowing council/RDA involvement and claiming total personal responsibility. (Where was Harriet in all of this anyhow? I can’t imagine an attorney would have approved an emailed offer with such vague, nonexistent or contrary info. about the source of the offer.)
I’m not sure how you have come to the conclusions listed in your op-ed. It seems like we’re all wishing things had happened in 2010 a certain way, ever if the documentation offered so far leads one to a less certain conclusion or, more discouraging, to a contrary one.
I see Luke offers some reasons why Stephen’s “framework” wouldn’t have appealed to him. Please post the DACHA rep.’s acceptance and the refusals the city received. These would clear up whether DACHA really accepted and left David T. as the one who refused, as you stated in the op-ed. These emails likely would show whether everyone involved was of a like mind about from where the “framework” was emanating.
You obviously have read more that we’ve been able to see about this 2010 issue. I hope you or someone will post something more definitive than you have so far? I think I’ve read “outside documents” you especially recommend. Is the mediated judgment document included in the package you recommend?
“Bottom line – the City/a CC member reached out to effect a settlement on the DACHA issue – and were summarily rejected by Thompson/Watkins.”
What have you seen, Elaine, that confirms your “bottom line” conclusion? Can’t be drawn from what’s been posted in the last two days.
Why do you think the burden is on the others to understand the deal the way we wish they would have? We hired the city council/staff to deal with these things effectively. The burden is on the side offering the deal to make it clear. It was in our best interest to make sure they did, and to follow up to encourage acceptance. In 2010, it obviously would have been in our best interest to assure clarity and understanding by all parties. The burden was on the city.
I do have a question for David and Luke still which is, I understand a settlement that cut out Twin Pines might be a problem, but did you go back to Souza and state the nature of that concern and see if he would revise the offer and if you did not, why not?
Good point, David. I do think that Councilman Souza was on the right track, however, trying to get EVERYONE involved to settle in one swoop. Any dangling issue would put this fragile lash up in more jeopardy. Too bad Stephen didn’t pull it off.
I have just returned to my office so catching up. More to come!
1. Where are the answers this morning that Stephen Souza promised he would post on the blog?
2. The City’s front page claim they made two offers has so far been unproven.
3. So sorry that the City Attorney is dragging the Council along. Well if the Council won’t do anything about her forgetting gaining a share in $10 million at Wildhorse what can we expect. As Delaine Eastin has said the “City Attorney has cut herself a fat hog.”
4. Souza’s email of 4/24 saying he did not represent the City is the last word so far.
5. City’s claim is evaporating overnight and Souza has disappeared. Will water be the next problem?
David Thompson, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
ERM
I asked Stephen Souza if the City had taken any action on DACHA. Souza answers No.
However, he conveniently left that out of the email he published here.
He then states on 4/24 that he does not represent the City.
David Thompson, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
David T
What are you accusing in your statement about city attny, Wildhorse and $10million
The soap opera continues but seems you should back up claims such as those innuendos
SODA Will answer in a moment.
This paragraph in the City’s OpEd piece is not true.
“In April 2010, prior to the City foreclosing on the DACHA units due to delinquency on mortgage payments due the City, Councilmember Stephen Souza, on behalf of the City Council, conveyed a settlement offer to Neighborhood Partners and Twin Pines of $300,000.”
Note the lead on the email that Stephen Souza sent speaks only of DACHA and NP. No mention of TPCF. $300,000 is mentioned but only to NP and not to TPCF.
“Framework for settlement – all this requires that DACHA be part of this process and that DACHA and NP agree and consent (and the city and the agency as well).”
Contrary to the Op Ed signed by the five Council members there was no settlement offer conveyed to Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation by the City.
Joe will you have the City retract that paragraph?
David Thompson, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
David T., I”m with SODA about the tone here. I’ve moved at accept much of what you’ve presented in the past weeks because you responded to questions with information instead of taking the approach that Sue and Elaine have (refusing to answer questions, presenting innuendo and questions that don’t move the conversation anywhere useful and calling nasty names).
The council has put you in a difficult spot with the claim that you caused DACHA’s downfall by turing down the city’s real good-faith offer to settle for more than you were owed at the time. The 8-year payout deal doesn’t look so hot the more one looks at the details, but it was an attempt to get things resolved.
I hope you’ll concentrate on “did he or didn’t he” refuse a legit. city offer and why rather than name-calling. For example, do any of the other addressees on the “no” email have a copy that confirms your serious charge that Congressman Souza falsified the email when he posted it on the Vanguard?
JustSaying
Thanks I try my best to answer as many questions as I can. I think it helps the dialogue. I apologise for not always having the time to answer everything.
David Greenwald has a copy of the April 24 email from Souza with Souza’s omitted words.
David Thompson, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
Late yesterday Souza admitted here that he shared information with David T. about what did or did not transpire in a closed session of city council. Amazing!
Now we’re learning about these secret, under the radar, semi official settlement negotiations by a city councilman who claimed not to be
representing the city. A very sloppy way to conduct the taxpayers’
business, and ultimately quite expensive.
Here’s that 4/14/10 email sent after the closed session Council meeting.
I have forwarded the email in its original form to David Greenwald.
Subject: RE: Any announced action by Agency last night
Date: 4/14/2010 9:04:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: SSouza@cityofdavis.org
Reply To:
To: DThompCOOP@aol.com, jeanne.jhnsn@gmail.com, chuff@ucdavis.edu, chuff485@gmail.com, randombagcheck@gmail.com, MelinaC71@yahoo.com, lukewatkins@sbcglobal.net
Hi David, No and I send to you all my framework for a settlement with correct and updated numbers. Thanks, Stephen
The above sounds weird. Why would he update the numbers if the cc hadn’t authorized it approved. Is he saying this was a second offer by him? Was there an attachment?
David Greenwald.
At the opening of the April 11 meeting with Stephen Souza I read from a statement prepared for me by the attorney for Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation. I told Souza that the offer completely overlooked the interests of Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation, that offering me money as an owner of NP and asking me as the volunteer President of Twin Pines to get TPCF to drop its case without any restitution placed me in a conflict that my lawyer said I should not be any part of. Souza was made known there needed to be changes.
However as evident from the “offer” of April 7 to the ‘offer” repeated on April 14 (after the Council meeting) to the one republished on April 24 Mr. Souza (representing the City of Davis) never made any changes that addressed those concerns.
And at the time TPCF was the only entity with a law suit in place.
David Thompson, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
Luke had caught a number of errors in Stephen’s math so Stephen updated the “offer”.
David Thompson, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
So why was the City offering borrowed public funds to NP so that one of its partners would get $150,000 as long as that partner would get the nonprofit tax exempt entity he served as President of to drop its law suit against DACHA without receiving any restitution?
That’s the core of what Souza and the City were offering.
David Thompson, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
It is 2pm where is the information that Stephen Souza promised last night he would send us this morning?
David Thompson, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
On April 11th I was acting as a mediator in the discussion with David, Luke and DACHA representatives I said in that meeting I had no authority to make an offer and that anything we did would have to go back to the Council/Agency. This also was the case with Twin pines and DACHA representatives who would have to take any framework of a settlement offer back to their boards. In the Closed Session April 13th I took that framework of a settlement offer to Council/Agency I was given the authority to present my framework of a settlement offer to all parties. It is as I remember it, framework states and as I have said all along I was given authority to present my framework of a settlement offer. I was to continue to try and get an agreed settlement offer by NP, Twin Pines and DACHA, not just a framework. The hope was to get to the point where I could bring a settlement offer to Council/Agency at the April 27th meeting where the Council would give staff direction to make a formal settlement offer not a framework for a settlement offer. On April 14th I sent all parties the email I posted last night on the Vanguard with the updated framework for a settlement offer. This is in that email “Framework for settlement – all this requires that DACHA be part of this process and that DACHA and NP agree and consent (and the city and the agency as well).”
I believe the key to understanding where the truth rests is the difference of a formal settlement offer verses a framework of a settlement offer. I could never get to a formal settlement offer, NP was a no with more wants of financial considerations and DACHA was a yes with concerns. What I did bring back to Council/Agency on April 27th could not get the Council/Agency to a yes where by a framework of a settlement offer became a formal settlement offer which then became an accepted settlement agreement by all parties.
This from the Op-Ed in The Davis Enterprise: “In April 2010, prior to the city foreclosing on the DACHA units due to delinquency on mortgage payments due the city, Councilman Stephen Souza, on behalf of the City Council, conveyed a settlement offer to Neighborhood Partners and Twin Pines of $300,000. This settlement offer would have enabled DACHA to pay off the remaining amount due on Neighborhood Partners’ $331,000 arbitration judgment against DACHA along with some interest.” It would have better to say “Councilman Stephen Souza, on behalf of the City Council, conveyed a framework of a settlement offer” and This framework of a settlement offer.” Either way an offer was conveyed to the parties. I was directed by my Council colleagues to continue and try to reach an agreed path out of this problem. I was not successful and the rest is history.
So David T is correct that no settlement was ever offered. Case closed?
Councilman, what are we to make of the two versions of your not-an-offer-but-a-framework email?
S. Souza: Why didn’t the Minutes of the April 13 closed session state that a consensus vote was taken, 5-0, and it was agreed that there would
be informal negotiations with NP, DACHA, and TP?
It seems pretty plain to me Councilmember Souza was attempting to broker a settlement that he could take back to the City for final approval, but NP/TP were having none of it…
LUKE WATKINS: [i]”4/11/10 Stephen verbally makes a proposal, but makes clear that he does not speak on behalf of the City. David T. points out that while it offers NP money, [b]it offers nothing to Twin Pines[/b].”[/i]
I am confused by the role of Twin Pines in this plot. As far as I know, TP has not been awarded any judgments. I thought the arbitration decision pertained only to Neighborhood Partners, not Twin Pines. Yet Mr. Thompson is complaining about the inadequacy of the settlement offer by Mr. Souza–the councilman, not the calypso singer–because Twin Pines’s interests were not met by Stephen. What are TP’s exact interests supposed to be?
“It seems pretty plain to me Councilmember Souza was attempting to broker a settlement that he could take back to the City for final approval, but NP/TP were having none of it…”
This is a three-parter. Everyone seems to agree that the councilman was trying to get a settlement that everyone could agree to. (Except maybe Twin Pines. For some reason it didn’t get included, but as Rich wonders, what’s TP’s role here anyway?)
The second part, that he was heading back to the council with something for final approval, isn’t clear at all. The third part, that NP/TP were “having none of it” doesn’t appear accurate from what we’ve read here. There’s evidence that all parties were talking at one point, but that Luke thought his interests weren’t being addressed. What happened in the midst of these negotiations is a part of the story that hasn’t yet been told.
Stephen:
I am grateful for your explanation of how you remember the incidents rolling out.
However, what you say and what we have emails of what you said does not comport at all with the City’s statement made to the public and broadcast widely.
“…Councilmember Stephen Souza, on behalf of the City Council, conveyed a settlement offer to Neighborhood Partners and Twin Pines of $300,000.”
I ask you and the Council to retract the above statement as it is not true. And this is why:
You made it clear to Luke and I, the DACHA board members, and I believe the Vanguard that you were not representing the City. The last document any one of us has is your April 24th email saying the offer was yours alone. This even after the closed session of April 13th that you describe.
Certainly, it is now clear from your recounting that the City Council knew of the offer, you must have briefed them on it, the Council must have talked about the Council and must have made some decision or approved some direction. Otherwise, the City would not be making the claim it did.
My first problem with the statement is you vastly misled everyone by telling us on different occasions that you were not doing this on behalf of the City.
My second problem is: “…conveyed a settlement offer to Neighborhood Partners and Twin Pines of $300,000.”
Read your own emails, you address them only to NP and DACHA, (not TPCF, your offer of $300,000 is only to NP (not to TPCF).
You offer nothing to Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation (the only entity that has a law suit against DACHA).
There was no …”settlement offer to Neighborhood Partners and Twin Pines of $300,000.” The offer of $300,000 was only to NP and not to TPCF.
That part of the statement is untruthful and quite misleading.
I ask you and the Council to retract that paragraph and replace it with wording that addresses the true facts.
Stephen. look carefully at my next post.
David Thompson, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
Stephen your post above makes two references that clearly omit reference to Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation.
“This is in that email “Framework for settlement – all this requires that DACHA be part of this process and that DACHA and NP agree and consent (and the city and the agency as well).” (Once again no reference to TPCF agreeing and consenting).
” I could never get to a formal settlement offer, NP was a no with more wants of financial considerations and DACHA was a yes with concerns.”
Once again no reference to TPCF. So how could it have been by the City’s claim that you were acting on their behalf in making a settlement offer to NP and TPCF?
The breaking of their articles and bylaws by DACHA, the breaking of many state laws by DACHA with the help of City staff appears to have no meaning to you and the City. The City now is being sued because of its role in the attempted looting of a limited equity housing cooperative.
In the International Year of Cooperatives you have now become a City that helps co-ops break the law, funds co-ops breaking the law and has their staff help a co-op to dissolve in pursuit of $4 million in personal gain.
The deal you offered was $300,000 for Luke and I while requiring me as President of TPCF to get the organization to drop its legitimate lawsuit and walk away without any restitution.
The law does not allow that.
David Thompson, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
David T
Can you explain why TPines is a party to the suit? Thx.
Details about the lawsuit against DACHA by Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation can be found at http://www.community.coop/davis click on DACHA.
In December, Yolo Superior Court confirmed that the causes of action can proceed to trial against the City/RDA as well. We are presently conducting discovery and depositions are next.
This is a landmark case about the looting of a limited equity housing cooperative with so many of the causes of action involving the role of the staff of the City of Davis.
David Thompson, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
Causes of Action NP and TPCF
Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
V DACHA, City of Davis/RDA
Case No.: CV PO 08-3424
Fourth AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR:
1). BREACH OF CONTRACT;
2). BREACH OF GOVERNING DOCUMENTS;
3). INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT
4). BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY;
5). VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE §33007.5;
6). CONSPIRACY;
7). DECLARATORY RELIEF;
8). UNJUST ENRICHMENT
Neighborhood Partners, LLC v DACHA, City of Davis/RDA
Case No.: CV-11-649
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR:
1). MISAPPROPRIATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS;
2). FRAUDULENT TRANSFER;
3). CONSPIRACY;
4). INTENTIONAL/NELGIGENT ECONOMIC INTERFERENCE;
5). DECLARATORY RELIEF
6). CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST;
7). EQUITABLE LIEN
Sorry for the double-posting, but I put the following on the old story instead of this current one:
Say, how’s this for a great idea? Each of you on this mailing list…
[quote]“Subject: RE: Any announced action by Agency last night
Date: 4/14/2010 9:04:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: ‘> ‘> SSouza@cityofdavis.org
Reply To:
To: ‘> ‘> DThompCOOP@aol.com, ‘> ‘> jeanne.jhnsn@gmail.com, ‘> ‘> chuff@ucdavis.edu, ‘> ‘> chuff485@gmail.com, ‘> ‘> randombagcheck@gmail.com, ‘> ‘> MelinaC71@yahoo.com, ‘> ‘> lukewatkins@sbcglobal.net “
…go back into your mail programs, forward your copy of this specific email–as well as any others with the same Subject–to David Greenwald at: ‘> info@davisvanguard.org
[/quote]
David then can compare all of your versions and report back whether any match the councilman’s supposed version or David T.’s supposed version. Do not edit or add any comments; just tap “forward” and send it along with the understanding that you won’t mess with any of the text. Thank you.
Sue Greenwald was in on that closed session on 4/13/10 in which Stephen has now disclosed that:
[b][i]In the Closed Session April 13th I took that framework of a settlement offer to Council/Agency I was given the authority to present my framework of a settlement offer to all parties
[/i]
[/b]
Where is the usually talkative Sue Greenwald today? In light of the e-mails disclosed here, will she still stand by the Op-Ed’s claim that the City made a settlement offer in April 2010? Will she confirm that the Council voted as Stephen asserts above?
Will the City back that claim up by making public the minutes of that closed session? Since they have breached the cloak of confidentiality that surrounds legal settlement negotiations, by claiming that they made an offer, shouldn’t they provide some actual shred of evidence?
How about it quiet Sue?
[quote]The second part, that he was heading back to the council with something for final approval, isn’t clear at all. The third part, that NP/TP were “having none of it” doesn’t appear accurate from what we’ve read here. There’s evidence that all parties were talking at one point, but that Luke thought his interests weren’t being addressed. What happened in the midst of these negotiations is a part of the story that hasn’t yet been told.[/quote]
Since Watkins & Thompson work in tandem/are closely allied, and Watkins was not willing that TP be excluded from any settlement agreement (in other words Watkins wanted money too), then clearly Watkins & Thompson were not willing to settle w the City no? So I’m assuming you feel TP should have been given another pie above and beyond the big fat pie already being offered to NP? So the city should have offered to settle for say $600,000, even tho the city felt it owed nothing bc it did nothing wrong? The word “highway robbery” pops into my mind…
[quote]You offer nothing to Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation (the only entity that has a law suit against DACHA).
There was no …”settlement offer to Neighborhood Partners and Twin Pines of $300,000.” The offer of $300,000 was only to NP and not to TPCF.
That part of the statement is untruthful and quite misleading. [/quote]
Who is doing the misleading here?
ERM
There was no …”settlement offer to Neighborhood Partners and Twin Pines of $300,000.”
Read the offer by Mr. Souza. It is written only to NP and DACHA (not to TPCF.
It is only about the NP judgment of $300,000.
It is only about ways for the NP judgment to be paid.
The offer required TPCF to drop its lawsuit without restitution.
A law suit found at http://www.community.coop/davis click DACHA
1). BREACH OF CONTRACT;
2). BREACH OF GOVERNING DOCUMENTS;
3). INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT
4). BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY;
5). VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE §33007.5;
6). CONSPIRACY;
7). DECLARATORY RELIEF;
8). UNJUST ENRICHMENT
Quotes from the Arbitration Award filed with the Yolo County Superior Court in June, 2009. Quotes by Kenneth M. Malovos, the attorney jointly chosen by DACHA and Neighborhood Partners and approved by the Yolo County Court.
“What is curious is that representatives of the City of Davis were present throughout the entire time when the new Board took these untoward actions and they did little to discourage the Board”. (Page 5 of Arbitration Award)
“The testimony by three members from DACHA who appeared at the arbitration can only be described as cavalier. For the most part their testimony was characterized by failures of memory, contradictions and a certain inability to admit even their own written words. Two of theses members appear to have been in serious arrears in their fees during times that they were members of the Board, in direct contravention of the bylaws”. (Page 7 of the Arbitration Award)
David Thompson, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
“Who is doing the misleading here?”
Elaine, I hope you’ll participate in a less obtuse way now that allegations about negotiations are all public and there are no demands on you as counsel for confidentiality. It’s much more interesting to read your opinions (as in the first of your two posts). I’m pleased that the city council decided to open up this important DACHA topic to more public viewing. Hope it doesn’t end up being one of those “more heat than light” discussions, though.
Now, back to your odd question. The credibility of the City Council’s op-ed claims is under challenge by the two targets of the Council’s attacks. The council claims an official offer from the council (at the time) of $300,000 to both businesses.
David T./Luke always have contended that no such offer came to them from the council. Their initial protests when the op-ed appeared were confirmed by Stephen Souza’s awkward rewording of the op-ed’s claims.
Now, David T. points out that the inclusion of both businesses in the council claim appears without merit. We’ll see what the counselors produce that provides some support for their statement, since nothing so far does.
Knowing what we do about the city staff and council lack of dilligence in the whole DACHA episode–now to my question for you–is it at all surprising that they’d screw up their effort to tar the Bad Businessmen because of poor attention to important detail and lack of documentation?
I think Rich Rifkin has a good point here that needs to be address. Let’s set aside the offer/ non-offer issue for now. David Thompson, can you lay out to us your assessment as to what damages that Twin Pines (as opposed to NP) has incurred and what damages you view them (TP) entitled to?
David, have you heard anything from Stephen Souza re. his intention to provide the emails that show the questions, offers, acceptances/refusals and their timelines?
Did any of the original 2010 addessees accept my request to forward their copies of the emails to you to evaluate for missing words or added words?
David, how did this story die such an early death? We’re, what, three days past the city council’s op-ed, a couple day’s past the mayor’s admonition thar it takes a lot of effort to figure out what happened and a day after Counciman’s Sousa’s admission that he and, consequently, the mayor had it wrong?
Since then, the mayor doesn’t answer questions and Stephen refuses the keep his promise to provide Vanguard readers his series of emails to support the city council’s allegations. Since then, two participants state the councilman has posted a fraudulent email copy and the councilman sez they must be lying. Eventually, the truth about this documentation will out, so one has to wonder why anyone would even would try to trick us.
Have you given up on this story?
“Have you given up on this story?”
No, but there was this little thing called a weekend.
“Have you given up on this story?”
“No, but there was this little thing called a weekend.”
Oh, yeah, there’s that. Just checking’.