The whole point of free speech is not to make ideas exempt from criticism but to expose them to it.

Monday, December 21, 2009

Something Fishy's Going On (SCOOP)

Sometimes it pays to stick around at a City Council meeting until after the Executive Session is complete. Tonight, the council emerged from the Caucus Room and City Attorney Jason Green asked the council to make and approve three motions, which they did.

Motion 1: Inform Fish Garbage Service of Rapid City that their license to do business in Rapid City would not be renewed. Passed unanimously.

Motion 2: Retain local law firm Nooney, Solay & Van Norman to represent the city in civil litigation against Fish Garbage Service. Passed unanimously.

Motion 3: Authorize Nooney, Solay & Van Norman to initialize civil litigation against Fish Garbage Service "post haste." Passed unanimously.

Very fishy, if you'll pardon a Monday night pun. I asked Ward 3 Alderman Bill Waugh if he could elaborate. He couldn't. I asked when we might find something in the public record that would shed more light on the subject. "As soon as the criminal investigation is complete," he said.

I asked Mr. Green to elaborate. He couldn't. I asked if he would confirm that a criminal investigation is taking place. He said yes, and then said he could say no more.

So, folks, somebody believes that something criminal has taken place and that the city has been on the bad side of it, meaning that you, Mr. Taxpayer have likely been a victim and we don't even know why yet. Civil litigation is likely to try to recover money. The only money Fish would owe the city is for use of the city landfill, unless the city is contracting with them to collect garbage, and I think the city's sanitation department does that. We're watching. And, you heard it here first.


Bill Fleming said...

Good scoop, Michael. Keep on "truckin'" and "talkin' trash" my brother.

Donna said...

I know that they terminated an employee at the landfill for not charging accounts the proper amounts for the times they dumped. Turns out the employee was charging the customer less than they were supposed to pay as long as they paid in cash and then the landfill employee was pocketing the cash. I wonder if this has something to do with it ?