First of two parts
Having been involved in law enforcement and private investigations for the past 36 years, I have a tendency to question a statement of fact that is presented to me — until I can determine what the truth is.
No one is more annoyed with this than my own children.
They are constantly apologizing to their friends by saying, “You have to excuse my parents. They were both police officers.”
My children are particularly annoyed when they tell me they are going somewhere or doing something — and I check on them to verify the truth.
Even my adult children, much to their dismay, are subject to this scrutiny.
Motive is a major factor in any law enforcement investigation. My children’s true motivations always are important to me. If they ask to go and study at a friend’s house, I want to know if studying is their true motivation.
Trust and Responsibility — the Difference
It is not lack of trust as much as it is my responsibility to see that choices they make are the best ones for them and the family as a whole. President Reagan had a saying that he used regularly during his two terms in the White House, “Trust but verify.”
The question facing us today is,:
Is Mark Scott the right choice for City Manager?
I don’t know the answer. But the problem is, I do not think the City Council knows the answer, either.
Vice Mayor Gary Silbiger had questions about the amount of money they are paying for Mr. Scott during these hard economic times.
Councilman Mehaul O’Leary had questions about Mr. Scott’s motivations for choosing Culver City.
The City Council and city staff agree that Mr. Scott has a very extensive resume.
He also says the right things when speaking to the Council and staff.
Should the City Council trust Mr. Scott’s resume? Should they trust what he says about his motivations for wanting to be the City Manager of Culver City?
Should the City Council trust the words of retiring City Manager Jerry Fulwood and the city staff that Mr. Scott is the right person for the position?
The Council may have already received, in Closed Session, all of the information they need from Mr. Scott to make this decision.
Mr. O’Leary said in last week’s Council meeting that he made a list of all of the things that Mr. Scott stated in Closed Session that he was going to accomplish as city manager.
Mr. O’Leary said he was going to hold Mr. Scott to all of those promises. A lot of unanswered questions remain about Mr. Scott.
The city needs to verify important information before they spend all of this money on him. The city should hire independent background investigators, locally and in South Carolina, to confirm the information Mr. Scott has presented.
For example:
• What did Mr. Scott promise the City Council in Beverly Hills he was going to accomplish as City Manager, and what did he accomplish?
• What reasons did he give Beverly Hills for leaving in 2003?
• Why didn’t he take the Spartanburg job in 2001 when they offered it to him?
• What changed in Beverly Hills and Spartanburg from 2001 to 2003 that made the move to Spartanburg more attractive in 2003?
• What did he promise the City Council in Spartanburg in 2003 that he was going to accomplish as city manage and what did he accomplish?
• Did the Council talk to anyone in Beverly Hills or Spartanburg who had anything negative to say about Mr. Scott? Or he is one of those people everybody likes?
(To be concluded on Friday)
Mr. Smith may be contacted at scsinvest@sbcglobal.net
