Response to Bob Langstaff

In a post on his own blog, Albany City Commissioner Bob Langstaff relayed information that basically said that Tim Coley’s accusations of the City’s outside attorney mucked with planning commission minutes wasn’t quite up to snuff. His entire block post can be seen here.

Coley claims he’s been trying to respond on Commissioner Langstaff’s blog and been unable to post a comment. This also seems to have been reported by at least two other people in regards to Commissioner Langstaff’s blog. Here’s is Coley’s rebuttal to Langstaff’s blog.

Now, the facts. My claim has always been that Frank Jenkins submitted minutes with his brief that had been changed after they were officially adopted. I never claimed to know who did it. However, based on conversation with Planning Director Mary Teter, I now know Frank Jenkins directed Teter’s department to make the changes to the minutes after they were officially adopted. I stand by may claim and offer the following as support.

In an email to Bob Langstaff regarding officially adopted minutes that Mary Teter indicates Frank Jenkins directed her to change, Frank Jenkins states

“Bob, this is just more smoke from Coley; the record shows that the court had at its disposal the transcript of the actual hearing and a copy of the official minutes”. This statement by Jenkins is true. But it does not justify Jenkins instructing Planning Director Teter, as she confirmed, to change the officially approved minutes and “inadvertently” submit them with his brief. Jenkins admits in his email “[t}he so-called unofficial minutes were inadvertently filed with my brief “. Why the hell was Jenkins tinkering with the minutes after they were officially approved ?

Jenkins goes on to say “but they were accurate and certainly did not mislead the court”. So now Bob thinks it’s OK to allow an attorney hired to defend the City’s illegal denial of my subdivision application the authority to change the officially approved minutes, “inadvertently” attach them to his brief, and then self report that “they were accurate and certainly did not mislead the court”. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

Even if Jenkins’s assertion “that they were accurate and certainly did not mislead the court” were true, changing the officially approved minutes is wrong. The public needs to consider the concerted unethical efforts to deny our property rights in totality before determining Jenkins’s intent regarding the changed minutes he admittedly submitted to the court with his brief.

So why would Jenkins change the minutes ? I’ll expand on that and the other unethical actions I reference, in detail, in a future email.

Tim Coley