Correction Or Clarification Requested

Mr. Albero,

I write this to ask for a correction, or at least a clarification, that I was wrong concerning my assertion that there was “no mention of the name of who signed the agreement…” for the City to provide off-duty uniformed police officers for Black Friday security at Wal-Mart. I was not wrong.

As I noted in my press release, “Council was not given a name as to who signed the agreement, but was told it was signed by a ‘manager.’” The police department representative did not state the name of who signed the agreement.

Ms. Sarah Lake of the Daily Times is correct that Mr. Muir Boda of Wal-Mart was mentioned in the work session – twice, not several times, that I can hear on the audio – as a result my reading of the memorandum from Chief Duncan. However, the memorandum from the chief states that “Mr. Muir Boda of Wal-Mart has expressed an interest…” and “A copy of this MOU was provided to Mr. Boda for review in the hopes that Wal-Mart will adopt policies similar to those adopted by the Center.”

(I attach a copy of the memo and the email council received by Council. I do not see in either document where it states that Mr. Boda would be signing the agreement, as Ms. Lake asserts in her article. An assumption is not the same as a fact.)

At that point, my only understanding of Mr. Boda’s involvement was that he made the request on behalf of Wal-Mart and took the paperwork for review -- review by whom, I can’t asertain from the memo. In my experience with corporations, including many Fortune 500 companies, the person doing the legwork to get a partnership or project going is not necessarily the person who signs the legal paperwork. In my position as an account manager, I often negotiated terms to go into a contract, but was not the person who was authorized to sign it.

While the administration knew the name of the person who actually signed the agreement in the police representative’s hand, I did not because the Council did not get to actually see the agreement with a Wal-Mart personnel signature on it. As noted above, I did not make the assumption that it was Mr. Boda who signed the agreement.

It doesn’t matter who the person signing is, as long as that person has the authority to make a legally binding agreement. The Council has no way of knowing who the person is who is legally authorized to do so without confirmation through the city attorney and/or a corporate document. It was an issue with the Centre at Salisbury.

While the confusion is understandable, the Mayor’s accusation re: any prejudice against Mr. Boda remains baseless and offensive, especially since I cannot recall ever having had so much as a cross word with Mr. Boda, the election was very cordial, and my track record shows that I do not allow personal feelings, positve or negative, to enter into the business decisions I make for the City.

The Council simply asked that the agreement be vetted through the city attorney, just as other agreements are. The administration should have completed the processing of the agreement with our legal department before coming to Council. This is another example of why Council needs access to the city attorney.

This episode could have been simply chalked up to a misunderstanding had the Mayor not made false accusations and the Daily Times had not been quick to do what appears to be little more than a “hit” piece.

Anyone who wishes to hear the brief discussion for themselves can go to the City Website at http://www.ci.salisbury.md.us/ and click on the link for the 11-7-11 work session. The discussion begins about nine minutes into the audio.

Thank you for your consideration of this information.

Terry E. Cohen, President

Salisbury City Council

410.845.0296

PUBLISHERS NOTES: This is the very difference between Salisbury News and The Daily Times. When, (and if) we are wrong we will make good on it.