H-S: Cole-McFadden allegedly violated City lobbying rule on MV contract

In the wake of the Herald-Sun's coverage of the Cora Cole-McFadden angle on the DATA bus contract last week, Ray Gronberg's back today with a look at a new angle on the material coming out of the Tom Hartley firing case.

In case you missed it, Tom Hartley -- the former manager of the DATA bus service on behalf of outsourced provider MV Transportation -- won a $172,000 judgment from MV in a wrongful termination hearing. The arbitrator found Hartley was fired over reporting an environmental violation as well as due to racial discrimination. The H-S reporting notes the arbitrator highlighted a conversation from mayor pro tem Cole-McFadden with MV officials in which the Durham native made a comment that Durham needed a racially-mixed management team.

The picture clouded further in this morning's Herald-Sun with reports that Cole-McFadden met privately with Hartley, MV co-owner Feysan Lodde, and then-MV attorney (now state senator) Floyd McKissick Jr.

That meeting occured between a Monday night Council meeting and a Thursday work session; the MV contract vote was postponed from the former until the latter meeting at Cole-McFadden's request.

According to the H-S:

While all [participants] were together, Hartley talked "a little about his background" and what he'd done in life "to give Ms. Cole-McFadden a better picture" of him, Fulghum said, attributing the information to a deposition from Tieskotter.

Eventually, though, Lodde and Cole-McFadden left the group and met one-on-one. Hartley testified that their conference lasted for 15 to 20 minutes.

When they emerged, Cole-McFadden "said that she no longer had any concerns about Mr. Hartley and she would not stand in the way of the contract being awarded to MV," Fulghum said, summarizing what Hartley and Tieskotter said in direct testimony to arbitrator Jonathan Harkavy.

No one other than the two women knows what they said to each other. Neither testified in the arbitration.

The meeting reportedly violated the prohibition on lobbying built in to the RFP process by Public Works, which required bidders to refrain from "engag[ing] in any discussion concerning the award of the contract with any council member of the Durham City Council."

As with the earlier article, Cole-McFadden and MV did not respond to the H-S' inquiries.

Will this become a tempest in a teapot, or the beginning of a larger issue around the bidding process and the mayor pro tem's role? Expect this to be on the mind of many local political-watchers in the days and weeks to come.

Comments

[Barry]

Ruh-roh.

[Coop]

You know, I think I'd like to talk about Floyd McKissick, Jr.'s name popping up here instead: he's a state rep and now we see he violated a lobbying rule, which of course he did, because he's ethically-autistic and has broken about a dozen other ethics laws and regulations in the past. I don't care how he votes or how nice a guy he is, he's basically amoral for whatever reason.

Can we please get rid of this man now, before he does something to truly humiliate Durham? Especially since he's already blatantly breaking the law and he has not even been elected yet (by more than a handful of people, that is): he does not live in the district he represents, he hasn't even pretended to move into the house he owns in the district, and he is basically thumbing his nose at the very rule passed because of him when he won the special election that sent him to Raleigh for a partial term in a district where he did not reside. When is a reporter going to get on the story and bust him so the Democrats can select another candidate in time to get them some name recognition before November?

I'm telling you: the Republicans know this and they are waiting to challenge his residency at the last minute. If the Democrats want to head off a ballot without a Dem candidate on it off, they better pre-empt them and get a replacement now.

By the way, it's too late for McKissick to back track and actually move into the district - he had to have moved in by November 4th of last year, and the Board of Elections can and will examine his electrical, gas and mail delivery records if his residency is challenged. It's going to be very easy to bust him

A lot of people know abouåt this, and they know he hasn't lived there a day, and the Democrats are being very stupid to pretend this is going to go away.

[Bull City Rising]

@Coop: Funny you should mention that. That little 835 N. Mangum St. question is on the BCR blog stories list for the week -- assuming that our friendly neighborhood metro reporters aren't already looking into the matter to see if there's anything of substance there.

[KeepDurhamDifferent!]

If you're sick of McKissick, you might be interested to know that the NC Libertarian Party has endorsed my candidacy against him in November, and my residency status is unquestionable.

[Coop]

I am very glad to hear that, Kevin -- and I hope that both you and our friendly Metro reporters take a long, hard look at the situation. They should call up some of the groups that sent out questionnaires for the candidates in the primary and ask them about McKissick's mail getting returned as undeliverable -- some of them had mail returned from *all* of his Durham addresses.

I can't understand what McKissick thought would happen when he was told outright that he had to be living in the district by November 4, 2007 -- and he had an empty house right there and available. He had to know his critics and opponents would be watching, as well as the press. Tempting fate in this matter is so his M.O. -- he honestly thinks the rules are for other people... but not him. It's self-destructive on his part, but I don't think he can help himself.

[barry]

I am very impressed by the way you turned this conversation from cora cole-McFadden's potential missteps, to a discussion of Floyd McKissick.

Well played.