Galletly Jury Trial Due in March
City Manager Bill Galletly appeared in District Court on Monday and learned from Judge Robert G. Haney that the state Court of Criminal Appeals had declined to hear an appeal at this time on charges of splitting of contracts, a misdemeanor. A motion to dismiss had been requested by Galletly's attorney, rejected by Judge Haney in October.
According to sources, the appeals court does not usually hear cases in advance of trial in lower court.
Next appearance date for Galletly is Jan. 6, when a trial date will be set.
Galletly's attorney, Jack Gordon, Jr., advised the judge that a jury trial will be requested and Haney said that it would probably be held the first or second week in March, after he hears felony cases.
Galletly was charged Aug. 19 by District Attorney Eddie Wyant for splitting of contracts on the "White Building Project" and "Grove City Hall Remodel Project" which occurred in late 2004 and early 2005, for purposes of avoiding the requirements of the Oklahoma Competitive Bidding Act of 1974.
Gordon maintains that the Act does not apply to city officials, as written in 1974 and amended in 1980, and therefore there is no punishment. Wyant maintains the crime is punishable by a fine of $1000 and one year in the county jail.
Some observers point out that the fine is less than the cost of a trial, to taxpayers.
Galletly was told to be at the courthouse in Jay on Aug. 19, 2005 on the bid splitting charges, just three days after he ordered work stopped on Cedar Oaks housing development along US Highway 59 in Grove, owned by Frank Hallacy, due to soil compaction problems. Some observers question the timing of the bid splitting charge.
Source of the dirt was at the Grove Municipal Airport and according to Hallacy's own deposition testimony when he sued Grove officials over the dirt issue, the dirt did not have enough clay in it to maintain the compaction required by the city.
GRDA has since shut down the project altogether stating that Hallacy had never applied for the required 404 permit as required by the Clean Water Act. Part of the property is in a 100-year floodplain and flowage easement of Grand Lake; Phase II was built on dirt dredged from Grand Lake at a cost of $400,000, according to Hallacy's testimony in the court case.
Some of the Cedar Oaks property has since been sold to a Neosho businessman.
According to sources, the appeals court does not usually hear cases in advance of trial in lower court.
Next appearance date for Galletly is Jan. 6, when a trial date will be set.
Galletly's attorney, Jack Gordon, Jr., advised the judge that a jury trial will be requested and Haney said that it would probably be held the first or second week in March, after he hears felony cases.
Galletly was charged Aug. 19 by District Attorney Eddie Wyant for splitting of contracts on the "White Building Project" and "Grove City Hall Remodel Project" which occurred in late 2004 and early 2005, for purposes of avoiding the requirements of the Oklahoma Competitive Bidding Act of 1974.
Gordon maintains that the Act does not apply to city officials, as written in 1974 and amended in 1980, and therefore there is no punishment. Wyant maintains the crime is punishable by a fine of $1000 and one year in the county jail.
Some observers point out that the fine is less than the cost of a trial, to taxpayers.
Galletly was told to be at the courthouse in Jay on Aug. 19, 2005 on the bid splitting charges, just three days after he ordered work stopped on Cedar Oaks housing development along US Highway 59 in Grove, owned by Frank Hallacy, due to soil compaction problems. Some observers question the timing of the bid splitting charge.
Source of the dirt was at the Grove Municipal Airport and according to Hallacy's own deposition testimony when he sued Grove officials over the dirt issue, the dirt did not have enough clay in it to maintain the compaction required by the city.
GRDA has since shut down the project altogether stating that Hallacy had never applied for the required 404 permit as required by the Clean Water Act. Part of the property is in a 100-year floodplain and flowage easement of Grand Lake; Phase II was built on dirt dredged from Grand Lake at a cost of $400,000, according to Hallacy's testimony in the court case.
Some of the Cedar Oaks property has since been sold to a Neosho businessman.
posted by Editor | 1:24 AM
2 Comments:
Mr. Galletly allegedly purposely split contracts in order to avoid compliance with state law requiring a bid process. I don't believe that Galletly has denied the facts of the allegation. While this is a violation of state law, Galletly argues that no punishment was specified in the statute, so it is somehow okay. What's wrong with this picture?
It is obvious why bid requirements exist, and it is obvious that we should not be happy when our municipal officials defy such a basic protection of the public interest. Yet it was reported that the mayor of Grove and at least two council members appeared at a court hearing "to show support" for Galletly.
Should not our elected officials be concerned when the city manager apparently deliberately breaks the law and awards contracts without bid? Our editor states the punishment is a fine of only $1000, and he implies that this does not merit a trial. I agree that no trail should occur. But my suggestion is that Galletly plead guilty as charged, and let the judge sort out the consequences.
Mr. Galletly's antics over Open Records issues are but a backdrop for this current little mess he got himself into.
When Grove was looking for a city manager and two of the choices were a soon-to-retire state senator with no relevant experience, and an experienced city manager, I supported the experienced candidate, thinking we would see a high degree of professionalism. While I still think the now-former senator was unqualified, I question the professionalism of the current manager over this, as well as the open records problems and the airport dirt fiasco.
A city manager should know the law, and follow it, if when inconvenient.
The linkage of the Galletly bid splitting charges and Frank Hallacy is a red herring. Mr. Hallacy, apparently disgusted with the small town politcs he was encountering in trying to complete Cedar Oaks and confronting serious health issues, signed a contract to sell Cedar Oaks in its entirety last spring. He moved to Arizona about a year ago, months before the Galletly bid splitting controveresy.
The Cedar Oaks sale was closed about the time Galletly was charged, but you can be certain that Hallacy had nothing to do with Galletly's problem. Further, did or did not Galletly split the contracts as he is accused of doing? Is that not the real question, and should that not be adjudicated?
Post a Comment
<< Home