Why & How Loomis Wanted David Andrews Removed As Oro Valley Town Manager Part 2

We left off noting why we believe Paula Abbott cast the deciding vote to terminate David Andrews. We hope all our readers will take the time to listen to the audio of this Sept 23 debacle of a meeting. Listen to my impassioned plea to Paula to not have her follow Loomis, Carter & Kunish, all of whom had "an axe to grind" with David. Sadly, it was all for naught. Paula was "hooked."

I hope you all watched the KVOA segment and noted three people were interviewed: me, David & Loomis. Too bad, I only received about 4-5 seconds of the 2-3 minute interview, long enough to say David's termination was a result of vindictiveness. That was only one reason. Innuendo was a major factor, and we'll get to that soon enough.

Watch the Loomis segment. Short but quite revealing. When you don't know what to say, you mumble and fill your sentences with "uh." Loomis did just that. He embarrassed himself and he embarrassed us as OUR mayor. Why was David forced out? Loomis says, "issues." Loomis couldn't say what many of us know. It was his basic insecurities of not being able to control David, as he (Loomis) does to every other weak person---which David is not. More on that later.

What was really telling was the short interview with David. With a heavy heart knowing he just signed his forced resignation letter, David exhibited such class and dignity----two attributes that Loomis lacks, and only said, "Thanks to the citizens, thanks to the council, thanks to the staff.Oro Valley is a great place to work and I'm only sorry I won't be around here anymore, but that's how it goes."

How many of us could or would have the wherewithal to be so gracious under those difficult circumstances? Certainly, not I. The more I watch the "David & Loomis" segments the madder I get. To lose a man like David and be stuck with a classless individual like Loomis, who will continue to embarrass us, probably until June, is very disconcerting---to say the least.

Loomis must be voted out of office in March----no ands, ifs or buts. He is not worthy of representing our fine community.

Now--- back to the issue. Allow me to give you the facts as I know them.

The word that was bantered around, certainly by Abbott, just prior to being cut off by the town attorney because she was about to violate what was said in the Executive Session of Sept 16, only one week prior to David's forced resignation----was "issues."

We already know Loomis said it on air. In essence, David was terminated because of "issues."

So, what exactly are these "issues" that were enough to force David out after 18 years of such dedicated service to our community? We'll get to it in a moment, but let's consider a few "ISSUES."

An anonymous letter was allegedly mailed to the mayor & council on Aug 14, and the letter writer in a subsequent letter said the initial letter dated July 30, should have been received by Aug 17. No recipient, to my knowledge ever received that first letter. Was it sent? I don't know, but there are those that believe there may not have been any first letter. Regardless, a second letter was mailed to the same individuals on Aug 30, this time to their home addresses, via the US Postal Service.

I have seen the letter. Although the anonymous letter writer had full intentions of causing David Andrews a problem, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the letter other than malicious innuendos.

So, if not this, what then could be the "issues?"

It is a fact, readily admitted by the Oro Valley police, that their union representatives wanted David out. Why, you ask? For no other reason than they think---and, at this point, they damn well may be right---that they run Oro Valley. Remember, David, working for the best interests of the people of Oro Valley believed the police who have by far the biggest budget---about the same as every other department cumulatively, fought "tooth & nail" so as to not allow even one of their own to be cut back, even though other departments had to do so.

Oh no! Not the cops! We already saw them in action as they showed up in force at the council meetings, both in uniform and in plain clothes with their sidearms in full view, making it clear what their intentions were.

This is the same union that only a few years ago had the audacity of putting out a document saying that they would try to work with the council, but if their perception was such that the council wouldn't work with them, meaning, meeting their demands, then "we'll take you out!"

Why is this important to note? Because David Andrews met with small groups of all the departments in an attempt to alleviate our budget issues, including a projected $1.4 million deficit for this coming fiscal year. Each department met with David in the small room at Town Hall. The police showed up in mass, and the large room where council meeting are held was the place they met.

Oro Valley's "Finest" thought they were running a union meeting, and without David's knowledge, the proceedings were taped and used against David. Although it is legal to tape someone without their knowledge, many believe, at least in this instance, it was morally & ethically wrong.

I have NOT heard the tape, but to my knowledge, the "worst" thing David said was that council members may say some things to him in public that differ from what might be said in private. If there's more, and I'm lead to believe there isn't, than this certainly couldn't be a big enough "issue" to terminate David.

Back to the Sept 16 Executive Session. As it is a violation for anyone in attendance of divulging what was said, I'm sorry but I don't know. Abbott came close to saying something before the Town Attorney delicately told her to shut up.

What I do know is this. The council knew about this anonymous letter weeks before the Executive Session. The cops had already surreptitiously taped their meeting with David. According to David's contract, it is for a a year, and renews automatically unless the council votes not to renew.

By the way, David has always known he is vulnerable as the council (his seven bosses) could vote to remove him at anytime WITHOUT cause. We believe this is exactly what happened!

So---In Executive Session, David's contract is discussed---(the meeting, not the contents was public knowledge) and no action was taken. No action means the contract renews for another year---or until council sees fit to terminate it, with or WITHOUT CAUSE.

On the morning of Sept 23, at about 9:30 AM Loomis phoned David telling him he wanted his (David's) letter of resignation. David was in a meeting, and didn't respond. Loomis then went to David's office and reiterated the demand, making two things very clear to David. One was that Loomis had four votes to terminate David, and two, that Loomis had four votes to not have to go into Executive Session to further discuss David's status. Rather, Loomis desired to make this a quick ordeal---voting immediately, and get David "out of the way once and for all."

Let's go back and discuss a couple details.
On Sept 21, Carter requests this Special Session in conjunction with the already scheduled Study Session. Kunisch seconds Carter's request and Loomis gives it his blessing. On Sept 22, it is added to the agenda and noted on the town's web site.

The agenda read: "Executive Session: Pursuant to A.R.S. 38-431.03 (A) (1) Council may vote to go into Executive Session for discussion regarding Town Managers David Andrew's contact."

Special Session---same as above. It was all a sham. There was never going to be any Executive Session, with only 3 votes, and David knew it and Loomis knew it---or why would Loomis tell David not to expect any Executive Session?

David knew that Loomis knew he had four votes, so David acquiesced and agreed to resign if he received his severance package and avoided the "blight" on his resume showing he was fired. (You or I may have not done so, but who could argue that David had to do what he thought was best under these terrible circumstances.)

Point number two. How could Loomis know he had the four votes? As we noted in Part 1 of this saga, Loomis is shrewd. He plans out all his steps. After all, he is a politician---not a good one, but a shrewd one. In any case, doesn't it seem reasonable that the ONLY way Loomis would know he had Abbott "in the bag" is if he, Carter, Kunisch & she violated the open meeting laws by discussion David's dismissal PRIOR to the Special Session?

Keep in mind, the four need not cuddle up in some sleazy motel and conspire. All that need be done to violate the law is for communication PRIOR to the open meeting. That includes, talking on the phone, email, (even they are too smart not do that) or by any other means.

So the Special Session goes as planned. Kunisch in his stupid, arrogant manner tried to make the predetermined motion before Loomis even opened the meeting for public comments. (Listen to the audio, if it won't make you sick, as it was obviously so contrived.) The public spoke and the public knew this was a set-up, but it fell on deaf ears.

Barry, Bill & Salette wanted to know why they were not privy to the "behind the scene" goings on. They implored the other four to allow for further discussion in Executive Session. Not surprising, the vote was 4-3 for "no." In a last ditch effort, Salette tried to allow David to have 5 more days to help in the transition. "No." Not approved, 4-3. These unscrupulous four wanted David out IMMEDIATELY, and they did just that.

One big question was never answered, and I can't answer it now. I can surmise, but that's it. If David was OK on Sept 16, what could he have done that was so egregious that on Sept 23, these four made sure that he was forced out?

The simple answer appears to be--- Absolutely Nothing, but remember, he could and obviously was, terminated WITHOUT CAUSE.

Finally, why would Loomis want David out? Loomis will only say, "it was issues."

I will tell you this, Loomis had in in for David for some time, because, as we noted, he, Loomis wants total control. I have witnessed first hand how Loomis operates since he took over as mayor some ten years ago. He got away with it, especially during the days that Chuck Sweet was Town Manager and the council was only five. When it grew to seven in 2004, Loomis found it a little more difficult in controlling a larger group.

Then in 2007 David got promoted to Manager and in 2008 Bill & Salette were elected.

Loomis made an all too telling remark during a meeting a few months ago. He said, in essence--- I was always able to read the council's mind in the past, but I can't read this council's mind. That was because he now had to deal with the likes of Bill, Barry & Salette, three intelligent people that won't be intimidated by Loomis and his bullying.

What also was so obvious to those who are close observers is the fact that David, with his vast knowledge and intelligence gravitated to those with similar attributes. That was a factor with Carter going "off the deep end," as he saw David working more closely with the three than Carter could accept. Likewise, Loomis saw the same thing. David became not just an adversary, but a threat to him, and Loomis doesn't like those types of threats to his authority. So, much to his credit, Loomis waited until he knew the time was right He then struck like a venomous snake and David's days were limited.

That, my friends and neighbors are the facts as I believe them to be. Certainly there is some conjecture on my part, but until anyone can step up, not with rumor and innuendo, but evidence, we must all believe that Loomis, his 3 stooges and the Oro Valley police unions made our community a lot worse than it was when we had David Andrews working so hard on our behalf.

I hope and pray our citizens will not forget what Loomis and these 3 did to David, and to us, and nobody with any sense of fairness should consider voting for Loomis or any of the three that may be foolish enough to run.

I'm sure I speak for thousands of our fellow citizens when I say, "God Bless David Andrews, and we wish him our best."

Thanks for your indulgence.

Art