The Martin Chronicles asks you to think back to a couple of months ago. On the morning of Thursday, May 23 Villa Hills malfeasant Mayor Mike Martin and others informed Assistant Chief Joe Schutzman that he was suspended without pay pending a Civil Service Board hearing where Martin planned to ask for Schutzman's termination. Martin also informed Mr. Schutzman that he was immediately terminating the contract the City of Villa Hills had with Schutzman Inspection Services to provide building and zoning services.
We have written extensively about the many foul-ups, bleeps and blunders Martin has perpetrated since that May morning. We aren't going to revisit them in this post. But there is another, related matter that may prove costly-yet again-for the taxpayers.
Our beloved publisher had one of his favorite legal minds review the Schutzman Inspection Services' contract-a contract Martin himself proposed and signed. The contract contains wording that could add fuel to Schutzman's lawsuit against Martin.
You see, the contract states that 30 days notice is required if either party chooses to terminate that contract. Given the events of the morning of May 23, 2013, it appears that Martin provided only about 30 seconds notice. It certainly seems that a very strong case could be made for breach of contract by Mr. Schutzman's attorneys. Just what the taxpayers need. More costly legal problems.
Let's play a little parlor game. We'll call it, "How will Martin explain this one away?". Given Martin's propensity to play fast and loose with the facts, the diminutive dictator may say something like, "I did give Schutzman 30 days notice. He just misunderstood".
Or, will Martin come up with a produced-after-the-fact letter he'll claim he provided Schutzman Inspection Services notifying the contractor of the City's intention to exit the contract in 30 days? Martin has already done something similar. Remember when he provided the previous council with another produced-after-the-fact-and as was later discovered, fraudulent-list of documents he illegally destroyed?
That approach would most likely prove a tough sell in court. Why? Because Martin held a rushed, emergency meeting on Friday, May 24-the very next day-to convince city council to authorize him to enter into a contract with the folks at Northern Kentucky Area Planning and Zoning to provide-you guessed it-building inspection services. Sadly, four council members voted to give Martin that authority having never read the agreement. Maybe Martin will blame them, huh?
Martin does seem to have a problem understanding contracts. Want another example? The City also has a contract with a bookkeeper to provide accounting services. That contract clearly states that the bookkeeper must have errors and omissions insurance to protect the taxpayers in the event of an accounting blunder. The problem? The bookkeeper does not have the contractually-required errors and omissions insurance.
The previous council asked Martin about that at a council meeting a long time ago. What did Martin say then? He said the City Attorney told him that the bookkeeper didn't have to have the insurance.
While we have only heard rumblings about it, we suspect that the attorney was taken out of context. We suspect that the attorney said that Martin did not necessarily have to include that requirement in any contract entered in to with the bookkeeper.
The problem? That insurance requirement is in the contract between the City and the bookkeeper. Again, we suspect that the attorney did not tell Martin that he could pick and choose the elements in the contract that he must enforce.
Why is that important? Because Mr. Schutzman's attorneys could legitimately claim that it is Martin himself who is guilty of "selective enforcement". We imagine that all of the people who supposedly don't care about these things very well might when these things begin to take an even bigger bite out of their wallets.
Our legal expert pointed to one more matter of concern in the Schutzman Inspection Services contract. The contract clearly states that Schutzman is not a City Employee when providing building inspection services. If so, why were the City Attorney's hearsay allegations about something someone else supposedly said Schutzman did-while serving as building inspector-included in the infamous "Bill of Particulars" presented to the Civil Service Board? That doesn't seem to make much sense.
For the record, we have nothing against Northern Kentucky Area Planning and Zoning. By most accounts, they are a dedicated, professional bunch. Besides, this isn't their problem. They will simply be providing the services the City contracted with them to provide.
No, this is just another unnecessary-and potentially very costly-fight provoked by the malfeasant Martin.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Oh, by the way, the monthly non-secret City Council meeting is tonight. Executive Session, anyone?]
