The Answer
After 23 days of asking two questions we finally have an answer. Last Friday I received an e-mail from Salisbury City Council President Mike Dunn that included the following:
I categorically state that neither my father nor any other member of my family benefited from the sale to Ruark, or that I nor any other member of my family held a financial interest in either Sassafras or Marquis, LLC.
Without any evidence to the contrary, I believe that we should accept Mike’s answer and conclude that he has not done anything illegal or unethical as regards this transaction. However, that does not mean that we shouldn’t oppose the annexation of the property on a variety of policy grounds – including a pretty long pipe stem.
Sphere: Related Content
//END Quantcast Code
“without any evidence to the contrary”…that’s because the shareholders in an LLC are not legally required to be disclosed. We have no way of knowing if Mike Dunn or any member of his family has an interest in Sassafras Meadows or Marquis, LLC. I think public servants should be required to disclose this information since their involvement could constitute a conflict of interest. Anyway, it does seem curious that it took Council Prisident Dunn 23 days of prodding (thank you Delmarva Dealings for that) to make his disclosure, “without any evidence to the contrary”.
Bill Clinton didn’t have sex with that woman either. Oh yeah, dont forget, he also did not inhale.
What took Mr Dunn so long to answer this question? The wording of his “answer” is so confusing that I’m not sure even now whether he had a conflict of interest in these matters. He writes like an inner party member from Oceania in the book 1984. Double-plus ungood, Mr Dunn.
Didn’t I read on Duvafiles that Mr. Dunn was supposed to disclose that he had a contract with the city (the pre-annexation agreement) when he filed for office?
An awful lot of stuff gets “overlooked” with the powers-that-be, don’t it?
–CD
Why should we accept his statement,”I categorically state…”? What has he done since he has held the position on the City Council to make anyone feel as though his word indisputable? I have tried to think of an example, but I have to say, I drew a blank. I feel as though ApathyinSby is correct that he should have to disclose the details of any involvement at all due to his position as an elected official of the City and the questionable timing of various events.
Can it be categorically stated that we have difficulty believing him, given his track record?
After reading this a few times, I realize why it sounds funny. Mr Dunn categorically states that his family didn’t make money on the sale to Ruark, and that he never held an interest in Sassafras or Marquis. What’s left? He never addressed whether HE made any money on the sale to Ruark.
Maybe he got paid in BOD stock? Nobody ever figured out when his interest there happened.
Mike had stated in his interview with the paper that he never benefited from the sale to Ruark as well as not holding an interest in either LLC. The problem was that he never would state whether a family member did. Now he has answered those questions. You can choose not to believe him, but right now there is no evidence to support that Mike isn’t telling the truth.
Before anyone demands that he be forced to prove a negative, ask yourself if you would ever want to be held to that standard.
I know, we’re holding him to a stringent standard that we ourselves wouldn’t enjoy. But I think if I had the track record he has I’d have to expect some skepticism from my public.
Alright, Mr. Dunn. I believe you. But we’ll still be watching you closely as we have in the past. That’s part of your job as City Council member: undergoing scrutiny by the people you purport to represent.
I thought when you became a public servant, the standards you are required to live by get “kicked up a notch” due to the powers that one is entrusted with. I don’t know if anyone is demanding proof, it would be the ethical thing to do.
I don’t “git it.” Maybe the question to ask is why, after goin’ to all that trouble to get a pre=annexation agreement, they sold the property for no profit? That just makes no sense at all to my dog brain. How come they didn’t file the annexation petition when they sold the land like the agreement said?
I dunno. Somethin’ still just doesn’t fit. Some of the explanations don’t ring right.
I ain’t sayin’ Dunn took a direct profit or kickback or anythin’ like that. But somethin’ just ain’t right about all this.
A dog’s got instincts about stuff.
–CD
What does Bill Clinton have to do with the price of eggs in China? And don’t forget Jennifer Flowers or Paula Jones.
Mike Dunn, like Bill Clinton wouldnt know the truth if it jumped up and slapped him in the face. I’ll believe he and/or his family made no profit when I see their tax forms. No one sells anything without making a profit, I dont care if its candy or property, people sell to make money not break even especially with the prices of property these days. As far as I am concerned Mike Dunn is a liar until he proves otherwise. Give me one good reason anyone should believe him?
Well done, good answer. I may stand corrected though, but I do believe that Bubba was talking about “not inhaling” at Oxford in England. Therefore he broke no laws here at home ; ) Good point though Donna, “The Truth Shall Set You Free.” I just wish that the people we elect remebered that after they take the oath of office.