Addison has once again been subjected to a wildly inaccurate, grossly misleading and entirely inappropriate missive about the wind turbine lawsuit.\u00a0 It includes outrageous, unfounded and slanderous attacks on former City Managers Ron Whitehead and Lea Dunn simply because they provided truthful testimony.\u00a0 Enough is enough.\u00a0 One would have hoped that these tactics would abate, given the results of the last two elections.\u00a0 But, here we are again, with the same people once again trying to mislead Addison residents.\u00a0 So, let\u2019s talk TRUTH about this lawsuit.<\/p>\n
The wind turbines haven\u2019t worked out for Addison.\u00a0 That\u2019s clear.\u00a0 On May 14, 2014, Addison\u2019s Council approved a contract with Landmark Structures LLP for removal of the turbines.\u00a0 That decision was based on concerns expressed by staff regarding the possibility of a turbine blade falling off the tower in an uncontrolled manner, possibly endangering those below. Staff recommended Landmark for the removal because Landmark had built the water tower and installed the turbines and was \u201cmore familiar with the system than any other contractor.\u201d\u00a0 On May 14, 2014, when this vote was taken, the Council still included Neil Resnik and Margie Guenther \u2013 or, in other words, the Council was not controlled by former mayor Meier.<\/p>\n
The May 2014 election delivered control of the Council to Meier, and his cadre took office shortly after the referenced vote was taken.\u00a0 It didn\u2019t take long for them to reverse course.\u00a0 In the Fall of 2014, Addison\u2019s attorney, now apparently taking direction from the Council (not the staff who by Charter are exclusively empowered to act on behalf of the Town), notified Landmark that (a) Addison intended to take legal action against Landmark in connection with the wind turbines and, (b) Addison would not honor the contract with Landmark to remove the wind turbines. That\u2019s why the supposedly dangerous turbines are still sitting on the water tower more than three years later.<\/p>\n
In July 2015, Addison\u2019s attorney filed a lawsuit against Landmark and Urban Green Energy (\u201cUGE\u201d), making claims for negligence, breach of contract and breach of warranty.\u00a0 But within a few short months, things took yet another turn, and here\u2019s where the whole thing got sticky and created the problems which have now prompted the outrageous attacks on Ron Whitehead and Lea Dunn.\u00a0 On September 28, 2015, Addison\u2019s attorney filed an amended petition that added a fraudulent inducement claim. Addison now alleged that Landmark \u201cand\/or\u201d UGE had represented \u201cto Addison\u201d that the wind turbines would produce \u201ca substantial amount of energy,\u201d and that these representations were false.<\/p>\n
The allegation that representations were made \u201cto Addison\u201d<\/em> focuses us on an important issue.\u00a0 Addison is an inanimate municipality. So, it can only act and receive information \u2013 such as \u201crepresentations\u201d<\/em> \u2013 through authorized representatives.\u00a0 That means that for \u201crepresentations\u201d to have been made \u201cto Addison\u201d<\/em> as the amended petition claimed, they had to have been made to someone<\/em>, and that someone<\/em> had to be an authorized representative of Addison. \u00a0That would include people like Ron Whitehead and Lea Dunn, for example, who had both served Addison during the discussions about this project.<\/p>\n All of which means that if you\u2019re going to allege that \u201crepresentations\u201d<\/em> were made \u201cto Addison,\u201d<\/em> you damn sure better interview Addison\u2019s authorized representatives to see whether it\u2019s true.\u00a0 Incredibly \u2013 inexplicably, really \u2013 neither Ron Whitehead nor Lea Dunn were interviewed before the Meier-controlled Council allowed the aggressive play of alleging fraud<\/strong>.\u00a0 Instead, Addison apparently took the Ready-Fire-Aim approach of making allegations first and asking questions later.<\/p>\n And, as it turns out, when both Ron Whitehead and Lea Dunn were finally asked about the issue, both testified under oath that Landmark did not make such representations to either of them.<\/strong><\/p>\n It is this testimony that is the subject of the latest facts-don\u2019t-matter missive.\u00a0 Both Lea Dunn and Ron Whitehead are attacked for testifying TRUTHFULLY <\/strong>that Landmark didn\u2019t make any misrepresentations to them about the wind turbines.\u00a0 Ron Whitehead in particular is targeted for his TRUTHFUL<\/strong> testimony, which is inappropriately spun as \u201cjoining the opposition.\u201d\u00a0 They go so far as to call Ron a \u201ctraitor,\u201d claiming that he has \u201cbetrayed\u201d Addison.\u00a0 All because he gave TRUTHFUL<\/strong> testimony.\u00a0 They even bring up his compensation as an employee in support of the outrageous suggestion that the salary and pension Ron earned for his thirty-two years of dedicated service to Addison should have BOUGHT<\/strong> whatever testimony would have supported the apparently false narrative adopted by the Meier-led council.\u00a0 Even if it\u2019s all false.\u00a0 It\u2019s beyond belief; these people are essentially claiming that Addison residents BOUGHT<\/strong> the right to demand that Ron Whitehead commit perjury.\u00a0 What an outrageous and ignorant assertion for anyone to make!<\/p>\n The torrent of unjustified and improper attacks concludes with the claim that the \u201creasonable and ethical\u201d standard that should have guided Ron Whitehead was that he should have \u201cwant[ed] to see some measure of taxpayer dollars reimbursed to the town and its taxpayers.\u201d\u00a0 In other words, they claim that Ron\u2019s focus should have been on getting the town money, apparently without regard to the truth.\u00a0 It is utterly disgusting.\u00a0 But then, we shouldn\u2019t be surprised. \u00a0Time and time again during the prior six-year tyrannical administration, we saw that exact tactic: That the end (here, \u201creimbursement to the town\u201d) justified the means (here, adopting a false narrative).<\/p>\n So, why has this horribly inappropriate missive from the Meier-supporting facts-don\u2019t-matter folks been published now?\u00a0 It\u2019s simple.\u00a0 Landmark has now filed a motion in which it alleges that all of Addison\u2019s claims are without merit.\u00a0 That has cast a pall on the Meier-led strategy, and they are clearly concerned that the result will be unfavorable.\u00a0 So, the spin machine is revving up, spewing its typical mischaracterizations and deceit, as the prior administration and its sycophant supporters search for scapegoats.\u00a0 It\u2019s the same old story.\u00a0 For six years, the buck never stopped with the tyrant sitting in the middle of the dais.<\/p>\n To attack Ron Whitehead and Lea Dunn on this basis is utterly despicable. \u00a0But it demonstrates yet again why Addison needs to keep moving forward and away from these destructive tactics.<\/p>\n Addison must respond to Landmark\u2019s motion in early November.\u00a0 The challenge for Addison is to identify sufficient evidence to support its claims, such that the matter should proceed to a trial (as opposed to simply declaring Landmark the winner now).\u00a0 On this point, the facts-don\u2019t-matter folks say they have some poster that they claim was once displayed in the post office.\u00a0 Even if that\u2019s true, unless there is a way to tie what it says to something Landmark represented to Addison, it won\u2019t amount to a hill of beans.\u00a0 I\u2019m assuming it was provided to Addison\u2019s counsel and, if it supports the fraud claims, that he will include it in Addison\u2019s response.<\/p>\n In the meantime, be very clear about this: We lawyers allege what the facts will support.\u00a0 We don\u2019t allege whatever we want and then demand that witnesses alter their testimony to support what we allege without regard to the truth.\u00a0 That\u2019s called suborning perjury and it\u2019s wrongful.\u00a0 All of which means that the problem here isn\u2019t the fact that TRUTHFUL<\/strong> testimony was given by Ron Whitehead and Lea Dunn when they were finally asked what happened. No, the problem here is that Addison\u2019s prior Council apparently allowed the fraud allegations to be made in the lawsuit before they knew what the truth was<\/strong>. We\u2019ll certainly have a better sense for that when Addison files its response to Landmark\u2019s motion.<\/p>\n The current Council inherited this lawsuit and any number of other problems that were caused during the prior administration.\u00a0 I\u2019ve written again and again that it will take Addison years to recover from the damage that was done.\u00a0 The outrageous and unjustified attacks on Ron Whitehead and Lea Dunn in an effort to evade responsibility for what now appear to have been irresponsible decisions give us yet another example of what Addison will be required to deal with for some time to come.<\/p>\n And make no mistake about this: The attacks on the current Council with which the facts-don\u2019t-matter missive concludes are politically motivated.\u00a0 They confirm that Addison residents must remain vigilant so that we can continue moving forward in a positive direction, solving problems rather than needlessly creating them.<\/p>\n