Thursday, September 17, 2009

The "troubling and problematic" activities of Todd Hanks

Troubling and problematic? I'll say. -- Jim

From The Delaware Gazette:

Hanks hears back from Ohio Ethics Commission

Thursday, September 17, 2009

By ANDREW TOBIAS
Staff Writer

Delaware County Commissioner Todd Hanks’ employment for a private engineering firm is theoretically legal, as long as he does not use his influence as a commissioner to benefit the company, according to a newly released legal opinion from the Ohio Ethics Commission.

Hanks has been employed by CEC since shortly after being appointed to the county commissioners board in January. His part-time, $50,000 a year job is to develop professional contacts and refer them to CEC. He is paid a commission based on actual work that is performed as a result of his reference.

Hanks asked the OEC for an opinion a few weeks after he began working for CEC. He said the OEC’s opinion echoed an opinion from the county prosecutor’s office that said the CEC job and his job as a commissioner were compatible. Hanks has also abstainedfrom votes regarding CEC work.


“(The opinion indicates) I’ve been doing everything legal and above board since day one,” he said.
However, Hanks’ actions since taking a job with CEC raises questions, multiple legal sources have told the Gazette.

Hanks in May invited employees from CEC to two development meetings between county officials, Village of Sunbury officials and a Sunbury landowner. At the meeting, county economic development director Gus Comstock said he would guide Sunbury through the process, and said he would see if the county could contribute money to the project. Hanks brought CEC employees to the meeting. He said he was trying to find them business with the landowner.

Neither the Sunbury officials nor the landowner knew Hanks worked for CEC, and a sign-in sheet at the second meeting shows Hanks signed in as a Delaware County commissioner.

The advisory opinion released by the OEC this month states that public officials are “prohibited from approaching other public officials or employees, while engaged in his official duties, to discuss the services that his private employer can provide.”

Ethics law requires elected officials with private jobs to make it clear whom they are representing, particularly in settings where that may be unclear. Hanks must also avoid representing CEC in any manner before any county agency, and avoid taking part in any discussions or votes that would affect CEC in any way, the opinion states. These restrictions apply to deliberations in public meetings as well as in non-public sessions.

Since Hanks asked for the opinion in February, the OEC’s response only addresses his employment in generalities, and not any actions he may have taken subsequently, the opinion states.

Larry Long, the executive director of the County Commissioners Association of Ohio, said it is not uncommon for county commissioners to hold outside employment, especially in more rural counties.

Long said he tells county commissioners to err on the side of caution and to stay away if discussions between public entities even remotely involve their private employers.

“You have to be ultra, ultra careful,” Long said. “Not only with ethics law, but there’s also the issue of perception, which is just as important to the public.”

Geoffrey Mearns, dean of Cleveland State University’s Marshall College of Law, agreed that the court of public opinion may not look kindly upon Hanks’ employment.

Mearns said while it wasn’t possible to determine whether or not Hanks violated ethics law without more information, he called Hanks’ activities at the Sunbury meeting “ troubling and problematic.”

“We should hold our public officials to a higher ethical standard than “Is this conduct illegal?” he said.

A commissioner’s high profile would make it difficult to distinguish when they are representing the county or when they are representing their private entity, particularly at a meeting with county officials, Mearns said.

“It’s not as if you come to one of those meetings and you put on your (consulting) hat,” he said. “County people know that you’re going to be sitting with them in a budget meeting.

A phone message left with a CEC office manager was not returned as of press time.

atobias@delgazette.com

29 comments:

jrig said...

The following from the Ohio Administrative Code, Code of Ethics for Engineers and Surveyors seems applicable ...

4733-35-06 Solicitation of employment.
(A) The engineer or surveyor shall not pay, solicit nor offer, directly or indirectly, any bribe or commission for professional employment with the exception of payment of the usual commission for securing salaried positions through licensed employment agencies.

Anonymous said...

The OEC needs to rule on Hanks's actions regarding ST eGe.

Todd Hanks would be in a heap of trouble now if it weren't for Ken O'Brien saving him from himself. Hanks is an arrogant fool.

Anonymous said...

Ken O'Brien did not save Todd from anything. Ken O'Brien has his own ethical issues to deal with.

He abstains when a contract is awarded to Paykoff, because of campaign contributions, but then he does not abstain in the vote for paying Paykoff.

He complained when Hanks was voting to pay the lease for the BMV.

But either way, the ethics commission has ruled that Hanks actions are not unethical per se, meaning that he has to be careful.

I don't mind people discussing the legitimacy or ethical nature of this issue, but calling Ken Todd's savior is ridiculous. If anyone put a halt to the St eGe business, it was Yost. But in the end that was an embarrassment to Yost.

Anonymous said...

First, it's one thing to award a contract to a contributor, and another to vote to pay for services already rendered them--let's get that straight.

Second, the focus of the OEC was not Hanks's dealings with ST eGe. It it were--and Ken O'Brien didn't do what he did to get it torpedoed--then Hanks would be on his way to the federal tailor to get fit for his orange jumpsuit.

Third, Yost only turned on the ST eGe deal when he saw people losing their minds in the board room over it, and it was going to hit the papers. As ST eGe's attorney said, quizzically, (paraphrase)"I don't understand, counselor, why you're questioning the contract now when we negotiated it with your office over several weeks".

Yost is a snake (like all the other DelCo GOP RINOs who hold public office and infect Central Committee).

So, you can save your nonsense for someone who doesn't know any better.

Anonymous said...

"First, it's one thing to award a contract to a contributor, and another to vote to pay for services already rendered them--let's get that straight."

You are presenting a red herring argument. Hanks has not awarded a contract to anyone and taken a commission on it.

Ken has voted to pay a bill for a contract with a campaign contributor.

"Second, the focus of the OEC was not Hanks's dealings with ST eGe. It it were--and Ken O'Brien didn't do what he did to get it torpedoed--then Hanks would be on his way to the federal tailor to get fit for his orange jumpsuit."

I never claimed that the ethics commission was investigating the ST eGe issue. All my comment was about was about the ethics commission's opinion on Hank's involvement with CEC. Any connection between CEC and ST eGe is only a grasping at straws. You should really stick to the facts at hand.

Your passion is admirable, but it is clouding your ability to talk about this subject cogently.

All Ken did was disagree and vote against it. The contract would have stood if Yost had not declared it invalid.

And to claim that Todd would be a criminal for working on the contract is ludicrous. It is not your place to say that, it would be a legal issue.



"Third, Yost only turned on theST eGe deal when he saw people losing their minds in the board room over it, and it was going to hit the papers. As ST eGe's attorney said, quizzically, (paraphrase)"I don't understand, counselor, why you're questioning the contract now when we negotiated it with your office over several weeks"."

Yost has had a history of changing his mind on contracts. He knew about the lease on the BMV location and did not oppose it. He only opposed it when he and Ken thought they could steal money from an honest property owner.

You sir need to address the issue at hand, and leave all of the other bitterness at the door.

Anonymous said...

What part of "nonsense" do you not understand?

The only red herring presented here is your proposition--based on the OEC finding--that Hanky Panky Hanks did nothing wrong. What he did re. Sunbury was a no-no. There were no serious violations, but it still serves as a cautionary note that he must disclose both his connections with CEC and his status as a commissioner. You're trying to extend the neutral finding of the Sunbury incident to his actions regarding ST eGe. There is no comparison. If Hanks had pushed through the contract and received downstream consulting fees from it he'd be going to prison, period.
Know what--I regret that the contract was torpedoed. In hindsight O'Brien should have just let those two idiots hang themselves. He should have let it go, then let there be an investigation in a year's time to see how the money that Hanks voted to appropriate to this company, wound up in his bank account.

As far as my "first" comment, I was responding to your charge that Ken O'Brien is a hypocrit for having abstained to grant contracts to contributors, but then voted to pay on those contracts. There is no conflict or hypocrisy there.

Making a connection from ST eGe to CEC is not "grasping at straws". CEC is an environmental engineering firm--the kind of consultant that ST eGe needs to do work on their behalf. And their stock in trade happens to be landfills, bioreactors, and EPA policy shaping. Google on CEC and report back what you find. The ST eGe contract that shot down even has language in there that ST eGe doesn't do it's own consulting. Connect the dots, dopey.

I addressed the facts. It is you who is being nonsensical. Anyone who tries to justify Todd Hanks's actions re. Sunbury or ST eGe is a fool.

Anonymous said...

You are making an odd argument.

There is no connection between the consulting firm and the proposed, but not passed, St eGe contract. There is no reason to connect the two.
If you notice, Hanks abstains anytime there is a possible conflict. He knows well enough that if he did vote for a contract, and get a commission, that there would be an ethical violation.
Your assumption of connecting the dots is unfounded in fact and poorly placed on speculation.

On to your other point, O'Brien's hypocrisy. You made a connection between the validity of the argument against Hanks and the argument against O'Brien. It is irrelevant that the two actions are not the same. O'Brien should be abstaining, by not doing so he is being unethical.
This is independent from the severity you see in the alleged and unsupported violation you claim Mr. Hanks committed. If an action is wrong, it is wrong. It does not matter if it is different than an action by someone else.So that is the non-sense that you are shoveling.
However, if someone has a problem with Hanks taking a commission on an ethical deal...that is o.k.. We all have opinions that are founded in our own ethics. The problem with O'Brien is an opinion I hold based on my values. I do not care if you disagree, that is o.k..
But forming an unfounded opinion based on a speculated connection between two companies,is non-sense. I would be thrilled to change my opinion if you had a foundation for your opinion. But after four thousand plus pages of public records requests, such proof has not been found. The probability is high that there was no ethics violation in the St eGe contract that was not passed.

Anonymous said...

That's Todd Hanks.

Hey Todd--don't you have some unethical activity to get to?

If anyone thinks for a second that CEC--an environmental engineering firm whose stock-in-trade is landfill, bioreactor and EPA reg consulting--would not have received taxpayer dollars funneled through that $3MM contract that Hanks tried to push through, is smoking something. Does anyone NOT believe that commissions on those CEC consulting funds would have gone right into Hanks's pocket?

Anonymous said...

Just more unfounded speculation and name calling. Your "argument" is seriously compromised by a lack of substance and maturity.

Anonymous said...

Okay--this guy tries to steal $3MM from me and my neighbors, and he's offended by the string's "lack of maturity".

What's there to debate?

Hanks misrepresented himself in meetings with Sunbury officials--we know that, and he tried to get a $3MM contract pushed through likely so that he could benefit on the back end. That he kept this enormous contract secret--even from a fellow commissioner; that it was put up for an immediate vote instead of discussion; that he kept it secret from the county officials
who manage these areas of expertise; that he works for an environmental engineering firm that specializes in landfill/bioreactors/EPA reg changing; etc. etc. etc. all points to a stinking heap of circumstantial evidence--NOT speculation.

If it was all so virtuous and devoid of conflict then why didn't Hanks roll out this grand project to county officials and the public for cost/benefit analyses and debate. Because he knows it was a stinker, that's why. The contract had nothing to do with bringing commerce to the county; it had everything to do with enriching his friends and himself.

That's what it looks like to me and just about everyone else who understands the issue.

When will the Boss Hog wing of the DelCo RINOs give it up?

Anonymous said...

Same record continues to spin here at club nonsense.
There is no connection between the two companies. There is no connection to Hanks profiting from the non-passed St eGe contract. The lack of foundation and maturity comes from people making claims that there is a connection, without proof, when there is no connection. You keep claiming there is one, but have no proof. So you are taking an assumption or speculation, and presenting it as fact. That is more than just immature and unfounded, it is also irresponsible.

The only founded argument you can make is: regardless of the ethics committee, we still think his involvement in the engineering firm is wrong. Outside of that, your argument is flawed with a lack of fact. Sorry, but it's true.

Anonymous said...

Todd Hanks campaign finance report shows he spent $2,400.00 in his first 2 months in office on legal fees to Crabbe Brown & James LLP noted Ethics Issues. Those of you in support of Hanks unethical behavior in Sunbury and around the county get your wallets out, make your contributions to Friends of THanks. It's necessary to pay his legal fees on your dime. Yes that is correct he paid his legal fees with your money to help keep him in office and too be able to run Mr Hanks needs you to write a big check to his campaign.

The joker defending his actions with the BMV lease dig deep so that Mr Hanks can cover the Taxpayers Action to repay Us The People of Delaware County.

The OEC has not ruled on his actions around the county regarding Sunbury, Liberty Twp or Orange Twp. Why did he keep his employment a Secret ??? How much has he received in commission over and above his $50,000.00 salary with CEC ???


CEC can have him but you Mr Hanks CAN NOT have Delaware County. No Thanks Hanks.

Anonymous said...

The "arguments" presented are not worth the time spent on them.

The BMV lease is not an issue at all. If there was a legal leg to stand on, the county would have sued already. They have not acted because they know they would lose. The contract was approved, in a legal sense, when the commissioners first payed the bill. Their continual payment shows their legal approval. Ask any attorney worth his salt, if he would take the position you are claiming. The answer would be a resounding no. So this point is moot and bringing it up constantly is done just to confuse the uninformed.

As far as the legal fees, it is equally likely that he used the firm as a consultant concerning his actions. It is prudent to see legal advice when making an important decision. You would likely scream foul if the county legal team was not consulted on an issue.

Mr. Hanks has not concealed his employment, it has been in several newspapers, and all over blogs/message boards. You have no idea if he has made any money or not. You are merely posing those questions to as "proof"??? That is nonsense.

Many of the ideas that have spun this bitterness out of control can be valid questions worth addressing. But that is not what is being done here. Most of the posts come from minds run wild about what could be true. Compounding assumptions and presenting them as facts critically compromises the structural integrity of any point you might have. And on top of that many are said in spiteful and immature ways.

What a pity that intelligent discussion has disappeared due to bitterness, spite, and a political agenda. This type of accusation and speculation of impropriety is why we are where we are politically as a nation. We are being taught to fear, and not to think. And so many of you are caught up in that purely passion driven political ranting.

Stick to solid facts. Ask valid and responsible questions. Don't just lead with assumptions to prove a point, that is weak. Pursue truth and logic, not political agendas. I guess that isn't a sexy and exciting approach, but it has teeth.

Jim Fedako said...

7:16 --

"The 'arguments' presented are not worth the time spent on them."

So, why did you just invest the effort? There must be something here.

Anonymous said...

Spin, spin, spin...

Where on this blog did anyone say that Hanks profited from the ST eGe contract?
It didn't pass, so there was no funding. You're attempting to debase the argument by making wild accusations yourself.

This is what we know: Hanks misrepresented himself when dealing with Sunbury Village officials.

This is what we know with 99.99% certitude would have happened if Ken O'Brien didn't save Todd Hanks from his sleazy self: The consulting company he works for would likely have received contracts, from which Hanks would have benefitted on the back end through commissions.

Since you're so certain of Todd Hanks's innocence in all of this, explain the following:

Why he would sneak a $3MM contract onto the board agenda for approval.

Why he would not have public discussions on it.

Why he would do this without consulting the Sewage Authority director, the county engineer and other country subject matter experts.

Why he would not make available documents to support the absurd revenue projections ($100MM annually--LOL!!!)

Why, why, why (I'm tired of you and this discussion already)

Hanks is a SLEAZEBAG, and he deserves to be wearing an orange jumpsuit. I wish to God that Ken O'Brien didn't save Todd Hanks from his sleazy self and he was busted a year from now having profited from this. The DelCo GOP is a den of thieves and scumbags.

Anonymous said...

Jim:
I simply meant they were not worth the time people were investing ikn them...as in, they are just compiling assumptions. Why are they investing so much time into making arguments that are not founded in fact? Maybe it is just a channel for the rage they cannot do anything else about.
If you are going to make a claim, at leas support it with facts. But that is not what is happening, people are just compiling assumptions.
When you compile assumptions,statistically, your argument becomes fatally flawed. Why put so much effort into an argument that yields emotionally charged and unfounded information? That type if argument is not worth the effort put into it. But explaining why the argument is flawed is worth my time. I care more about making solid arguments.

Of course, I wonder why you only put your input in on one point of my comment. Is the information enough for making strong arguments about the relationship between the engineering firm and ST eGe? There is an argument against that position, but it is not based in documentation either.

I am open to the fact that Hanks may be guilty of something. But I am unwilling to place my opinions based on the assumptions of others. I am also open to the argument that his actions, while ethically legal, may not be wise to engage in. But instead it has turned into making factual or obvious claims when facts do not support such claims.

Jim Fedako said...

8:31 --

Got it.I misunderstood your comment. I took it you believed that it wasn't worth the time to refute other's arguments.

Jim Fedako said...

Oh, of course, I believe there is too much smoke around Hanks for there to be no fire.

Anonymous said...

Jim,
Your position about smoke and fire is reasonable. The ST eGe deal gave reasonable people a reason to be suspicious. The manner in which it was handled, being put on the agenda last minute and all, is suspicious.

I am only interested in the facts of the situation. But that doesn't mean the circumstances don't mean anything to me. Calling something a fact, when it is only an assumption is a poor way to make a point. And disagreeing with a poorly made argument does not make me a supporter or enemy of an elected official.

All along I have said that I am willing to accept ideas and facts. Party lines, even inter party lines, does not matter to me. Right or wrong is not determined by my preconceived political side.

The type of argument being presented by many of your commentators simply adds fuel to the fire of blind passionate support or opposition. And that is what really matters to me about politics in our county, state, and country. Which is something you posted about recently.

I would say that I could care less if Hanks is guilty or innocent, and in the context of making a sound argument; that is true. But concerning justice in the political realm, I do care if he is guilty or innocent. All I want is a clear, concise, and factual argument.

This has been a long rambling verbal diarrhea, I know. But it explains why I am arguing the way I am, and that it in no way shows my endearing or demonizing of Hanks.

Anonymous said...

Just a little pet peeve of mine: People who say/write "I could care less." when they should say/write "I couldn't care less." "I could care less" means you do care, at least somewhat, so it hardly makes the point people are trying to make.

Anonymous said...

The bottom line to all of this is that Todd Hanks should be in an orange jumpsuit. So should Boss Hog Ward and Jon Peterson.

From now on I will urge those who labor to pre-empt corruption to let it happen and then fry the bastards hot-handed.

I'll say this a third time: I wish to God that Todd Hanks was allowed his $3MM giveaway so that he may have been caught with some of it in his possession. Anyone who does not believe that his actions re. ST eGe were not to enrich his friends and himself is a fool. His actions showed his intentions. If the whole thing was legitimate he would have approached it in sunlight.

I understand that it's speculation. But, given the facts of the matter how can one speculate that he did not intend to defraud the public?

And don't try to tell me that you don't specualte. Everyone speculates. It forms the basis of intuition, and YOU do it every day.

If you are so certain that his motives were pure, then please explain why he snuck the ST eGe contract onto the agenda for a vote; never consulted with county sewage and engineering personnel; never presented a business case justifying the expense; etc. etc. etc.

And if you say it's no big deal then you are a liar. Given Hanks's behavior over the ST eGe giveaway you--anyone familiar with it--would cast a cloud speculation as to his motives on any of his future proposals.

Speculation is nothing more than a forecast of probability. Given Todd Hanks's sleazy dealing on the ST eGe contract the forecast of probability that he would have enriched himself from it is high.

Anonymous said...

Now you are taking the time to parse your arguments a bit. But you are still way off on my motivations for posting.

But concerning your comments:

You now claim that the St eGe deal was to enrich his friends. This speculation can be made easily because Todd and Phil are friends. I have never had a problem with this speculation, and that has been consistent throughout my comments.

Concerning speculation, it is irrelevant if I speculate in my life. What is relevant is, do I speculate and then present it as fact. The answer to that is, no. Doing so is irresponsible, ignorant, or deceitful. (or maybe a combination of all three)

The connection that was made earlier was about a factual connection between the engineering firm and the St eGe deal, this is problematic because it is speculation. There are no facts to back up that assertion. You made an assumption based on what two companies do, but that alone is not enough to state a factual relationship.

And if you do go back and read my posts, you will see that I was never arguing that Mr. Hanks was innocent or guilty. I even admitted that it is suspicious the way they handled the waste to energy project. Too bad your passion blinded you to what was actually being posted.

I was simply critiquing assumptions being presented as facts or compiling assumptions and labeling them as fact. On the other hand, many were stating assumptions as facts and misleading others. There are many key words that can distinguish facts from opinions. If you want to communicate clearly, you should use them. (but that is given that you are trying to be honest) But be discerning with words and ideas, they are powerful...no matter how cliché that sounds.

Many people are dishonest about facts and assumptions in politics because it reaches their goal. The problem is, that approach lacks integrity and it dumbs down our discourse. Too many people believe that if then end is right, the means do not matter...as long as it is my perspective. I do not subscribe to that unethical approach to political discussion.

Be honest about who you are. Play the cards you have been dealt, let the chips fall where they may, and in the end you will still have integrity.

Anonymous said...

Cotton Mather lives and breathes on this blog.

Unless you are an insider with the parties to the contract you know nothing about it and who was to do what if it ever was approved by the commissioners and signed by the parties.

All of this is assumption and speculation with not a shred of real fact or evidence to support the wild and dishonest allegations made here.

It is shameful conduct resembling middle school lunchroom wrangling. Actually, most middle schoolers have a better sense of honesty than is displayed here by these ignorant accusers.

Anonymous said...

6:00 is just as bad as the rest of the posts about Hanks.

A reasonable mind would admit that the actions he took concerning the St eGe contact looked suspicious.

Now I also admit that it is hard to produce proof of an action that did not take place. But that is why people are innocent until proven guilty. Too bad we do not operate that way in county politics.

It has been said in a condescending and sarcastic manner, but there is validity to the idea of letting someone hang themselves on their political rope. Then at least the ideas and actions are being judged by results not speculation.

But in dissecting the circumstances we must be fair to what is known, and even admit weaknesses in our own thoughts. Until we can do that, childish bickering and diluted propaganda will reign.

Call me an optimist, but I think that can occur in Delaware County. A better government would result if people would merely check their egos at the door. But it takes the lead from our leaders. Some of them are doing just that, but our political blinders may keep us from seeing it. Cut those stitches out, and free your eyes.

Anonymous said...

"The connection that was made earlier was about a factual connection between the engineering firm and the St eGe deal, this is problematic because it is speculation."

Where did I ever state this connection as fact or that it occurred?

Anonymous said...

“If Hanks had pushed through the contract and received downstream consulting fees from it he'd be going to prison, period. “
This statement here presents what you claim existed between St eGe and the engineering firm. Your statement was, he'd be going to prison period. If you did not state it as a clear fact, you surely implied it.

You also called me dopey for not connecting the dots,
“CEC is an environmental engineering firm--the kind of consultant that ST eGe needs to do work on their behalf. And their stock in trade happens to be landfills, bioreactors, and EPA policy shaping. Google on CEC and report back what you find. The ST eGe contract that shot down even has language in there that ST eGe doesn't do it's own consulting. Connect the dots, dopey. “
According to you, you would have to ignorant to believe there was no connection between CEC and St eGe. You leave no room for doubt on your position, sounds like a fact in your mind.



“If anyone thinks for a second that CEC--an environmental engineering firm whose stock-in-trade is landfill, bioreactor and EPA reg consulting--would not have received taxpayer dollars funneled through that $3MM contract that Hanks tried to push through, is smoking something. Does anyone NOT believe that commissions on those CEC consulting funds would have gone right into Hanks's pocket? “

Once again, you would have to be stupid to believe that the money would not have gone to Hanks on commission.


“The contract had nothing to do with bringing commerce to the county; it had everything to do with enriching his friends and himself. “
That is a clear statement that claims the truth about Hanks.

Many of the statements question the intelligence of people who might believe anything other than (any of the anonymous) folks have claimed. You are asserting that no one with a brain could claim that Hanks would not have been enriched by a commission with the St eGe deal. While it may not be, “Hanks was going to get a commission” , it might as well have been.

These arguments are not trying to present the facts and then speculate. They are arguments made and then argued that we should just know better. And when you go to that level, you might as well say it is true. Of course the tone here is truly that of fact.


And and on a grammar side note, “I could care less” is just fine...it just implies that you care some and that amount could be lowered.

Anonymous said...

"his statement here presents what you claim existed between St eGe and the engineering firm. Your statement was, he'd be going to prison period. If you did not state it as a clear fact, you surely implied it."

Well--which is it? Did I state it as fact, or imply it?

“CEC is an environmental engineering firm--the kind of consultant that ST eGe needs to do work on their behalf. And their stock in trade happens to be landfills, bioreactors, and EPA policy shaping. Google on CEC and report back what you find. The ST eGe contract that shot down even has language in there that ST eGe doesn't do it's own consulting. Connect the dots, dopey. “
According to you, you would have to ignorant to believe there was no connection between CEC and St eGe. You leave no room for doubt on your position, sounds like a fact in your mind."

You're kidding, right? If he was trying to give $3MM to an ice cream maker then you'd have a point. But he wasn't; it involved a firm in an industry that he reaps consulting royalties from, and--you're right--there is little room for doubt.

etc.

etc.

etc.

Anonymous said...

You know there are a couple of ways to look at your comments.

1.You waited a long time before questioning the comment about stating it as a fact. It is likely that you did not mention it before because either you did not read all of my post or you think it is a fact.

2. There is a fine line between a statement of opinion and a statement of fact. If you assume that anyone who has a brain would agree with you, then it might as well be a fact statement from your perspective.

You are not being honest with people, you are berating anyone who disagrees with you. You only give a token .001% chance that there is no connection to the St eGe contract and CEC. That is a statistically insignificant point of data.

You also leave out that CEC is also in the business of Civil Engineering which carries many other facets than the ones that are advantageous to your slanted point of view.

The point is, if only a moron could accept another point of view; you might as well be stating it as a fact. And despite the absolute language use, it does not negate your bias, propaganda, and compiling assumptions.

Your assumptions and assertions are lacking the structural certainty you attribute to them...and if you were thinking clearly, you would admit it. But I guess you may never improve your myopic view. It's ok, you are allowed to be wrong. Maybe the witch hunter comment was appropriate for the likes of you.

Anonymous said...

Here is a challenge for the accusers on theis topic.

Prove your allegations with facts, something other than your opinion, speculation or assumption. Then post your proof.

You don't even show that there are or you have have dots to connect