On Wednesday, Mayor Suttle Recall Committee (MSRC) Treasurer John Chatelain wrote an extensive memo criticizing the actions of David Nabity as they related to Nabity’s involvement with the MSRC.
But is that all it is?
(That is sort of crucial to this whole matter, and frankly in this day and age of terabyte drives, Wikileaks and the internet tubes, is there really any excuse for NOT posting the whole thing?
So here are our assumptions for Why Chatelain Wrote the Memo:
1. He is so caught up in political gamesmanship that he didn’t care if he threatened the entire recall by displaying the dirty laundry for all to see.
2. He is positive that Judge Pete Bataillon is going to rule against them and throw out the signatures and he is covering his ass.
3. He is nervous about how Judge Bataillon will rule, so he is throwing Nabity under the bus with the hope that none of it will stick on the MSRC.
That’s what we’ve got.
So let us break them down.
(Go ahead, refill that coffee, because we are getting in thick.)
The idea behind #1 is that Chatelain is wildly upset by the idea that Nabity tried to kick him out of the organization that he “founded” and take it over himself. He is so enraged that he is willing to potentially risk the very recall, just so that Dave Nabity can’t use any benefits he derived from it in order to get himself elected Mayor.
That is pretty much the gist of the OWH’s article on this.
But does that make any sense?
Sure it’s all relatively accurate depending on your point of view, but where does that get Chatelain? He says Nabity tried to take over the MSRC and he needs to “out” that in order to save the “integrity” of the organization.
They’re trying to throw Jim Suttle out of the Mayor’s office. We get it. It is what it is. It is politics. There is no inherit integrity involved. They want someone else in. Fine.
But are we to understand that Chatelain and the rest are simply in favor of Anyone But Suttle after that? Of course not. They want their candidate to step in, and apparently that ain’t Nabity.
But what if it is? Who cares? There are no points for integrity in all of this.
And by the way, one could make a very easy argument that they never would have gotten enough signatures if Nabity hadn’t been proactive to help fund the whole thing.
So if there isn’t more to it, didn’t he just hand the Anti-Recallers and the Judge some juicy info to dig into. So we get that Chatelain has an axe to grind against Nabity, but again, where does writing this three page memo get them after that?
No where. And when you read all the rest of the arguments Chatelain put in the memo, you can see that there must have been another reason for this.
So what are the reasons behind #2 — He is positive that Judge Pete Bataillon is going to rule against them and throw out the signatures and he is covering his ass.
Well, note that Chatelain — an attorney — goes to great lengths to talk about the outside groups that Nabity and his money brought in and how they were paid.
He talks about how Nabity “independently” hired Paul Jacobs of Citizens in Charge and how Jacobs would be paid. He then goes into some detail about how the “paid workers” would be paid. (Which paid workers isn’t clear.)
And of course, at the crux of the whole Anti-recallers court argument is how the circulators were paid.
So that gets us back to the reasoning on all this.
Does Chatelain think this is all going kerplooey and he wants to make the case that Nabity is all to blame and the MSRC is otherwise clean as the fallen snow?
Man, if that’s the case, he must REALLY be sure about his position. Because otherwise it would seem like he just threw out some ammo for Vince Powers (unless of course Powers already has this info, and will succeed with it).
Then there is #3 — He is nervous about how Judge Bataillon will rule, so he is throwing Nabity under the bus with the hope that none of it will stick on the MSRC.
If we had to bet, this is where we would put our cash. This is probably the argument they will make in their defense on the issue, if it is deemed that there was some sort of untoward payments going on. “It wasn’t the MSRC! Nabity did it!”
And then if they are successful in court, they can attempt to point to Nabity to say, “And HE almost screwed it up! Don’t vote for him!”
Now whether that part of the argument is true or not, that’s really a branch of #1 above. They might get that out of #3, but we would be very surprised to discover that #1 is the only reason for the memo.
So while the political intrigue is much more juicy in all of this, we think it is really based in the MSRC’s legal argument on December 20th.
So when the Judge rules, crank your hearing aides towards any mention of Citizens in Charge, what they did, and how they were paid.
There is a decent chance that the whole argument turns on that.
And then we can come back to the Chatelain Memo to see what he really meant.
Folks, in order to understand this even better, I think you need to listen to Nabity, Chatelain and Aspen on Tom Becka from last night.
Click here to go to Becka’s podcast page — you can also just click “Listen” to hear it.
Nabity is on the second half of the 4pm one, but then mainly listen to the 5pm one to hear Chatelain and Aspen as well.
After listening (we didn’t hear it last night) we are inclined to change our views on all this, a bit.
We will have another post up later.