In a message dated 9/16/03 12:01:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< The funds for Dania Hall certainly were contracted. That is the only way funds can be released. The issue with Dania Hall was that the contractor evidently did not have liability insurance to cover the loss. The MCDA contracts clearly state that the contractor is required to provide a certificate of insurance to the MCDA prior to the release of funds. I am not sure what fell through the cracks on this one. >> Keith says; Sounds like the former MCDA owes a neighborhood 1.2 million bucks when it failed to uphold it's fiduciary duty. That is, a duty to enforce contract requirements before approving, and releasing, managed funds. A task that I presume the former MCDA contracted, billed, and was paid to do properly. Who was the Director of the MCDA at the time of the fiasco? Who mismanaged this program? Were any demands made to recover the money? Was anyone sued to recover anything? Were any court judgments sought? Was an MCDA employee ever reprimanded? Just curious as it is a small sum of public money. Keith Reitman NearNorth REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
