Council Meeting wrapup for 10/04/2006 Part 4
During the remainder of the evening, the theme continued. Rosado was defensive, often referring to his attorney for questions, and for vindication of his position. However, none of those moments were more spectacular than when Rosado made a complete 180 about the question related to 16-05, as presented by Mrs. Lepera.
Mrs. Lepera stated that the Westphal Property would have “greatly enhanced value” if Ordinance 16-05 would pass. She asked Rosado if he knew that the property was going to be marketed as a car dealership, prior to sponsoring the ordinance. He said that he did.
Soon after this, there was a short recess, prior to public input time. Immediately after this break, Mr. Rosado ‘clarified’ his position by stating that his answer was ‘no’. This is a decidedly interesting turn of events, and a complete reversal of his previous position. It is alleged that the ordinance was so specialized, that only the Westphal property could have possibly taken advantage of the ordinance. It shows potential for yet deeper problems. I’m absolutely certain we’re going to hear more about this particular aspect, in the coming months.
Public input time included only approximately 12 residents, including myself, who spoke. About half wanted Rosado to step down, the other half were more worried about other city business, and felt Rosado was a distraction.
Councilman Day came up with what I felt was an excellent compromise, considering the situation. He asked Rosado to step down, with excused absences, until the investigation was concluded. Rosado stated that he would answer by Friday at 3 PM.
After this, Rosado and his attorney tried several times to have the ordinance modified to limit the investigation as much as possible. They continually referenced specific events, attempting to narrow the scope. Thankfully, none of the other City Council members would be swayed to that tactic, and all voted to open investigations to all of Rosado’s dealings from the date of his swearing in, until present. They also included in that motion the writing of a letter to the State’s Attorney.
There were several sudden calls for motion to adjourn, but the Mayor still had business to attend to. Clearly holding back the harsher of his thoughts, the Mayor made a motion to remove Rosado from all of the board seats which he held. Rosado, in something of a self defense move, resigned all of his seats. (With the exception of the most important one, of course.) The council then moved to vote the Mayor in to the tourism board seat. Rosado, claiming that Mrs. Bertolini wanted the seat, tried to move to have the seat granted to her. She declined, and the Mayor was approved for the seat.
The council adjourned shortly after, and the media moved in for reactions and interviews.
Rosado and his attorney reiterated that they felt Rosado was already tried and convicted. I’m not sure why they would feel the necessity to take this tact. It clearly was not the case. The only thing the Council needed was ‘reasonable doubt’ about Rosado’s statements. They did not need to prove anything to launch an investigation. After all, the very act of investigating is to find out if there are facts. Failing to keep that in perspective was to fail yet another test of ethical consideration. An investigation is just that. Rosado’s actions have left a reasonable enough doubt to warrant in investigation. The outcome of that will prove irrevocably one way or another, if Rosado has any wrong doings.
