This is one of the attachments that came with Beth Hartlines' Op-Ed, dated July 3, 2012:
To: MSD Board of Directors
From: Beth Hartline
RE: Possible Conflicts of interest
2) Who is legal counsel for MSD's landlord: Airola & Airola?
3) Who is legal counsel for Murphys Sanitary District: Airola & Airola?
4) Does Ken Airola benefit financially from landlord Pat Davies as a client of Airola & Airola, a legal corporation? Conflict of interest?
5) How long has Ken Airola been legal counsel for MSD? How long has Airola and Airola represented MSD's landlord Pat Davies?
6) While under contract to MSD, has Ken Airola ever performed any legal work on behalf of MSD's landlord or advised Pat Davies on issues raised at MSD to determine whether it is legal for her, as an MSD Director to directly benefit financially from both rent and utilities (e.g. 1090 Eithics Violation or the MSD lease itself)?
7) Is there a conflict of interest for Ken Airola to have advised the MSD Board on these same issues (e.g 1090 or the lease itself) ?
8) If so, would the legal advice given to the MSD Board regarding a 1090 Ethics violation/and or the lease itself be open to review and a second opinion?
9) If an employee -- specifically office staff -- or the District itself complains about the condition or safety of the building it is renting, is there concern that such complaints could result in retaliation by the landlord, especially when landlord Pat Davies is voting on job descriptions of MSD staff and salaries? Conflict of interest?
10) Is there an impartial second legal opinion that can be sought on behalf of the Disrtict, it's Board and ratepayers to protect our interests, as these potential conflicts involve both the MSD President Pat Davies and MSD's legal counsel Ken Airola?
11) I request a timely written response to these questions. Thank you.
Beth Hartline
5) How long has Ken Airola been legal counsel for MSD? How long has Airola and Airola represented MSD's landlord Pat Davies?
6) While under contract to MSD, has Ken Airola ever performed any legal work on behalf of MSD's landlord or advised Pat Davies on issues raised at MSD to determine whether it is legal for her, as an MSD Director to directly benefit financially from both rent and utilities (e.g. 1090 Eithics Violation or the MSD lease itself)?
7) Is there a conflict of interest for Ken Airola to have advised the MSD Board on these same issues (e.g 1090 or the lease itself) ?
8) If so, would the legal advice given to the MSD Board regarding a 1090 Ethics violation/and or the lease itself be open to review and a second opinion?
9) If an employee -- specifically office staff -- or the District itself complains about the condition or safety of the building it is renting, is there concern that such complaints could result in retaliation by the landlord, especially when landlord Pat Davies is voting on job descriptions of MSD staff and salaries? Conflict of interest?
10) Is there an impartial second legal opinion that can be sought on behalf of the Disrtict, it's Board and ratepayers to protect our interests, as these potential conflicts involve both the MSD President Pat Davies and MSD's legal counsel Ken Airola?
11) I request a timely written response to these questions. Thank you.
Beth Hartline
2 comments:
Does anyone else see a pattern or problem with so many possible conflicts of interest? How can a public utility operate under such conditions? We can't. We aren't! Please attend July 9th board meeting at 6P to see for yourself who is in charge of our sewer. Once we can't flush...it's too late.
Beth Hartline
I saw a pattern and big problems with the District and was punished for speaking up and telling the truth. Fear can stop many people from speaking up. Retaliation from those involved may just be too much of a risk for some people to take.
Post a Comment