Did Wayne Cauthen Lie on his Resume?
A lot of us were hoping that Wayne Cauthen would get the job in Austin. It would have been a positive end for him, it would have given the city an opportunity to hire someone more in line with the new council's priorities, and it would have allowed the Nine Councilpersons off the hook for the silly petulant tantrum they threw when they tried to stick us with Cauthen for 3 more years.
Alas, it didn't happen. And I think I may have found out why.
Take a look at the resume Wayne Cauthen submitted in his quest for the Austin job. Pay attention to his very first bullet point: Corrected the city’s previously structurally imbalanced budget.
What?!?!
Friends, that's what we call a whopper.
Contrast Wayne Cauthen's recent resume with his recent memorandum submitting the budget to the Mayor, with the subject line City Manager’s Preliminary Budget for Fiscal Year 2008-09. Pay particular attention to the section entitled "The City’s Structural Budget Problem":
Kansas City, like a lot of major center cities in the country, has a structural budget problem. A structural budget problem occurs when costs of current and future expenses exceed current and future revenue streams. There are four criteria for a city budget to be structurally balanced and they are as follows:For a guy who claimed on his resume to have corrected our structurally imbalanced budget, he doesn't seem to have a problem submitting a structurally imbalanced budget. He even includes a segment on page 14 entitled "Staff Initiatives to Address the Structural Imbalance."
1. Current ongoing revenues equal or exceed current or ongoing expenditures;
2. Planned or future revenues equal or exceed planned or future revenues;
3. Reserves are at an adequate level; and
4. Infrastructure maintenance is at an adequate level.
This budget that is presented for your consideration meets none of the above criteria. While significant progress is being made on the funding of infrastructure maintenance, and we have made progress on our reserves, the proposed budget uses a significant amount of one-time resources to balance the budget for next year; the projected deficits in the out years continue to grow and our reserves remain below desired levels.
This City has wrestled with its structural budget problems for decades. Previous budgets made great strides in dealing with the expenditure side of the equation through workforce attrition efforts such as consolidation of services; span of control reviews; middle management staffing reductions; and an early retirement program that significantly reduced overall staffing levels. In addition, the City has better aligned annual salary increases closer to annual revenue growth. Even with these significant changes, the structural budget problem persists. When revenue growth is strong, as it was anticipated just one year ago, the underlying structural budget problem is mitigated, but when there is uncertainty as to the strength in the local economy and new expenditure commitments are made, such as the City’s commitment to increased maintenance spending, the City’s structural problems re-emerge.
Lying on resumes is serious stuff. It's not only a major lapse in fundamental integrity - it shows a willingness to engage in fraud to accomplish personal goals.
Can anyone explain to me how the Wayne Cauthen's claim on his Austin resume was not a lie? If not, can anyone explain to me why he should not be told to clean his desk out and escorted to his car on Monday morning?
Labels: cauthen, city council, kansas city
posted by Dan at 1/26/2008 09:14:00 AM
67 Comments:
He sounds like the kind of guy who would abuse his travel budget, and submit questionable items. Hey, wait a minute . . .
Good sleuthing, Dan. Let me be the first City employee to say THANK YOU for your "Gotcha, Wayne".
Funny, recent discussions on http://www.tttkc.blogspot.com/ have included comments of how Cauthen never puts anything in writing that could hang him. Apparently his arrogance wouldn't allow him to play it safe in his resume.
I urge you to please apply your keen eye to his copygate debacle to see what discoveries you spot there.
Here's the "City Manager Needs to Strengthen RFP Contracting Practices" audit:
http://www.kcmo.org/auditor/07-08audits/CopierRFP07.pdf
and here's support information requested by council:
http://www.kcmo.org/auditor/councilmemos/RFP%20consultant%20timeline.pdf
http://webfusion.kcmo.org/coldfusionapps/auditor/showrecord.cfm?ID=183
Thanks, Dan
Hey Dan, what do you think about his leaving Miss Underhill in charge of his office while he was away in Austin? I am taking as a given you understand whp she is and what circumatances she left under. Personally, I thought that he should have been fired the day he did this.
The Funkhouser haters are curiously quiet on your topic of the day, Dan. No orifice banter anywhere. Guess all's quiet on the western front of the City.
Guess they are Cauthen fans. The emperor's clothing has fallen off.
Well it is clear that the mayor's vindictive punishment machine is gassed up and running in high gear again.
Dan you have no credibility anymore, because you simply dance to Funkhouser's fiddle.
Former Fan -
It's fine that you disapprove of my position on the mayor - many in the blogging community do.
But I am sincerely interested in learning what it is about this story that bothers you. In your opinion, is Cauthen's lying on his resume not a legitimate issue to raise? In your opinion, is it okay to have a CM who has committed a serious breach of ethics? Or is it your opinion that lying on a resume is not a serious breach of ethics?
Or is it your opinion that any fact which tends to cast Cauthen in a negative light is somehow an illegitimate defense of our Mayor? Please note that I didn't even mention our Mayor in my piece - this is really not about him.
But, honestly, I'm kind of proud of this post, and I'd love to know what you find so wrong about it. I'm kind of proud of having Cauthen's resume stick in my mind and having the budget memo trip an alarm.
Are you sure Wayne is not correct? I believe that in one of the prior budgets (2003, 2004, 2005) the "structural imbalance" was corrected. Just because it exists in this budget does not mean that it was not corrected in prior budgets.
The last line of the resume is telling as well.....
Anonymous - Good and fair question. The answer is, I don't think so. I went back and looked at previous budgets, and the memo was more of a sunshiny PR document during Kay's administration than now, but I didn't see any claims of having a structurally balanced budget. Also, in his memo this year, he mentions that the problem "persists", though in prior years it has been "mitigated" (note that he doesn't say it was ever corrected or eliminated).
Even if he had claimed it was (outside of his resume, that is), there's no way any budget during his tenure met his standard number 4. And I assume that standard number 2 is a typo, and should have required that "Planned or future revenues equal or exceed planned or future EXPENDITURES", and that would have been a stretch, too.
In my opinion, balancing each year's budget in the past has used smoke and mirrors.
A structural imbalance can be overcome by overestimating revenues for the coming year, or underestimating costs in various areas. That was the case in recent years, altho the economy produced increasing revenues that nearly eliminated the structural imbalance. Simply put, if expenditures exceed revenues, you have an imbalance. The budget proposed by the CM for next year uses one time revenues and revenue exaggerations to balance it. What this will do, if revenues continue to decrease and fixed expenditres will obviously increase, is create a budget crisis out two and three years that will require massive cuts in services at a time when Cauthen will be gone and the council will be running for re-election. Hopefully, some of our council will be intelligent enough to see this and require cuts in services now instead of waiting.
The current budget left by the previous administration, you may recall, showed an 18M shortage after the first quarter, altho this has improved a little, the current council is going to have to use 4M out of next years revenues just to finish this year with a balance between revenue and expenditure.
Based on the above, you draw your own conclusions. Is his resume playing fast and loose with the smoke and mirrors truth, or did he actually balance the budget?
Cat got your tongue again, Dan? My questions were simple and straightforward.
it would have given the city an opportunity to hire someone more in line with the new council's priorities and it would have allowed the Nine Councilpersons off the hook for the silly petulant tantrum they threw when they tried to stick us with Cauthen for 3 more years
--------------------------
What??? hahahha! I am by no means a Wayne Cauthen fan, nor am I anti-Gone Mild. But Dan, that sentence is all over the map. Not to mention, to me and others, it's another attempt at playing the Mayor's attack dog. Let's face it, most of the people that are standing up against the ridiculous ideas and comments that are constantly coming out of the mayor's office are community figures, bloggers and concerned constituents that you know supported him.
Lieing on a resume is bad, but then again, you didn't tell your readers that you were advising Funkhouser while you were writing pro mayor propaganda. You have never once said that figures standing up against the mayor actually supported him with their money and vote. Heck, Half of the mayor's staff didn't even turn in a resume, which includes his wife! And if they did and still were hired, that alone would be grounds for the mayor to step down. hahaha!
This Cauthen guy didn't lie about his education, or his job titles. He didn't fail to give hate organization affiliation information: Like that one old racist and the Minutemen. The guy put sugar on an otherwise ok job. Definitely not grounds for stepping down. You are taught in resume building courses to find the positives in everything and put sugar on the negatives. You know this. You did it everyday as a lawyer.
Inafunk -
Please don't expect instant answers from me on your off-topic questions. You're not quite as interesting as you may think you are, and I don't see where I'm obligated to talk about what you want to talk about, any more than you are obligated to respond to my every post.
Jerry -
Lying on resumes is absolutely wrong, and there's no excuse whatsoever. It's not sugar-coating to say that you have corrected structurally imbalanced budgets when you have not - that is lying. And it is utterly unacceptable.
The rest of your comment is only distraction, and I'm not going to let you get away with it.
Jerry, I was hoping he would get the Austin job, and I am not a Funk fan. Cauthen is simply a bad City Manager, and Dan's reasons for wanting him gone are as good as any. Truth is, everyone wanted him to get the job.
It looks to me like Cauthen lied. Not sugar-coated, but absolutely, 100% lied on his resume. An attempt to get a job thru fraud. Maybe you're okay with that, but I'm not. If he's willing to screw Austin, he's willing to screw us. Like by cheating on travel expenses.
Fire Cauthen tomorrow!!
Dan it is your opinion that Cauthen is "lying" on his resume over a point that is debatable. It is not a statement of fact. But that is not my point.
To me, it looks like you are acting on the mayor's behalf and probably his direction to attack a man who holds the job Funkhouser really wanted. The mayor could not bully Wayne out, so now people like you attack his character.
I also believe that the mayor is a mean-spirited SOB who is motivated by his own personal power trip.
He practices the very type of vindictive politics that I thought we were voting against when we supported him in the primary. But if you disagree with Funkhouser, or vote against Funkhouser or even if you just do not kiss his ass in the way he or his nutty wife likes it best -- then you are attacked. Attacked by the Mayor's staff, or Councilman Skaggs or even by your blog.
I am sick and tired of people like you and Funkhouser who have to settle every political disagreement with an act of aggression.
You should be ashamed. But I know you are not ashamed and I know you will just make fun of me. It is the kind of person you are.
Honestly, I cannot ever recall discussing Cauthen with the Mayor, and I can assure you we have never discussed his resume.
What would you have me do if I notice that someone I consider to be a bad city manager (or even a good city manager) has lied on his resume?
And this is not a gray area - this is black and white. He claimed to have corrected a structural budget imbalance, and then wrote about the fact that his budget has a structural imbalance.
Perhaps in your ideal world, we would hold hands and say that it is okay to lie on resumes. But that's not my ideal world. I don't think it's vindictive or aggressive to point out a lie on a resume by the man who had ministers come and testify on his behalf. Do you? Really?
My comments aren't distraction. I am not a Cauthen fan and I said that already. But you are exaggerating the truth on this story. You are again just being the Mayor's attack dog. Which is in all realities...a fact. As you still advise him eventhough you still say that you don't.
Dan - Jerry's not trying to distract the issue. It's just that he's trying to attack you instead of defend Cauthen.
A structurally balanced budget is a specific thing. Cauthen even defines it in his budget presentation. It's not a case of maybe it is, maybe it isn't. It's a case of "it isn't", and Cauthen says that himself. No ifs, ands or buts. He lied.
How clear does it have to be for you, Jerry?
As for Former Fan, again, way to attack the messenger.
DAN CAUGHT CAUTHEN LYING ON HIS RESUME!!
Does anybody here want to talk about that?
Former Fan -
Did you really just claim that Funk is vindictive and attacking? Did anybody else see the meeting where the ministers came and attacked Mark and his wife?????
Now you're claiming that Mark is attacking and vindictive because Cauthen wrote a lie on his resume?????
Hahaha - thanks. I was kind of wondering why we wound up talking about me when it was Cauthen who got caught lying on his resume . . .
I am so tired of most bloggers making an inflexible connection between the mayor and Cauthen. I'm not a particular fan of the mayor, but he's not the liar that Cauthen has been outed on many times lately (see Finance & Audit session, 1/23/08 - where he verbally "changes" what he says in his own written memo). The mayor has made many social errors in judgement, but I've yet to see him be a liar or attack anyone (like the African American group attacked him on every issue they could think of). If the mayor had wanted to fire a white CM, no one would've been at City Hall worrying about race relations. Cauthen needs to be GONE already!
Who said anyone lied on his or her resume other than a secret commentator with an ax to grind?
At the same time, Dan's "Boss" Mark Funkhouser lied on about 5000 yard signs: "A City That Works." Since Funk took over this city has been totally disFUNKtional.
If Funkhouser is not vindictive, why did he keep Beth Gottstein from any kind of leadership position after she opposed the Semler appointment? Why did Funkhouser threaten Jan Marcason with losing her leadership positions over standing up for Due Process during the Dog Park controversy and then Joe Miller laugh about witj to friends? Why does Joe Miller still tell people that Jan's husband could be brought in on code violations? Why did Bill Skaggs try to sell a scandalous story about Beth Gottstein when she voted against caning the City Manager because the mayor did not like him? Why is it that street work, once it has begun, virtually stops in the 4th District after both council persons have voted against Funkhouser's schemes? Why is it that Joe Miller knows so much about attack posts which tie Gottstein's aide to (of all places) Erotic City? We are talking about vindictiveness.
Vindictive does not mean immediate retribution. Vindictive can mean waiting for the right time and then trashing someone's life. The latter is Funkhouser's style and Dan you are a cog in that machine.
Dan if you are not writing on behalf of the mayor -- and you would not have to talk to the mayor to know he hates the City Manager -- can you say you have not talked with Deb "I hate Wayne" Hermann or Funkhouser's thug Bill Skaggs?
Anon 1/27/2008 8:45 PM
The power to fire the city manager does not rest with the Mayor. It rests with the council, and the mayor only has one vote there.
Read the charter before you spew kooky ideas.
Anon 1/27/2008 8:45 PM
The power to fire the city manager does not rest with the Mayor. It rests with the council, and the mayor only has one vote there.
Read the charter before you spew kooky ideas.
As stated by my clear-thinking friend who commented at 4:37, "DAN CAUGHT CAUTHEN LYING ON HIS RESUME!!
Does anybody here want to talk about that?"
I guess, instead, you'd prefer to attack the messenger.
Anonymous 9:55 - I don't owe you any answer to your questions about who I've talked to, at least until you explain why it is ok for Cauthen to lie on his resume, but, what the heck, I'm in a generous mood again. No, I haven't talked to Deb Hermann or Mr. Skaggs about Wayne Cauthen. Now, since I've been so generous and kind to you, would you please explain what that has to do with Wayne Cauthen's resume lies? Even if I sat in a meeting with Ms. Hermann, Mr. Skaggs, Mayor Funkhouser, Mr. Miller and Ms. Squitiro, and they ordered me to write exactly what I wrote, would that make the lies on Mr. Cauthen's resume somehow acceptable?
IF Mr. Cauthen lied on a resume that he presented to the city of Austin, they should not hire him, and if they do, it could be grounds for termination from the city of Austin.
Unfortunately, that lie was not made to the citizens of KC. It was not on his resume when he applied for the CM job in KC. Therefore, it would not be grounds for dismissal.
I know; a liar is a liar, but you can't fire someone for lying to a party not associated with their job. If you could, a lot of businessmen, who visited the nightclubs of other cities would lose their jobs.
Cauthen might deserve to lose his job, but termination based on a lie that he told to an outside party would be extremely weak grounds for dismissal.
Dan
You have no proof of Mr. Cauthen lying. You only have a differing opinion about the structural standing of the city budget from the one Mr. Cauthen presented. You are on dangerous ground when you continue making written accusations of a lie in a public venue, which could result in Mr. Cauthen suffering a financial loss. Think about it Dan.
I don't see where I'm obligated to talk about what you want to talk about, any more than you are obligated to respond to my every post.
=====
And how was my question about Cauthen off topic? You either don't like me (fair enough) or just didn't feel like answering. Fess up big guy. The truth will set you free.
Reason -
Where's the problem? Here's why I'm not worried:
1. "Corrected the city’s previously structurally imbalanced budget."
2. "There are four criteria for a city budget to be structurally balanced . . . This budget that is presented for your consideration meets none of the above criteria."
Both are his words.
I takes a very hateful individual to do the research you have done with regard to the manager's resume. The intent is clear: to cause injury to his reputation.
Perhaps you ought to consider the timing of the two documents. One (the resume) was issued in November/December. The other issued in January. The budget document was not prepared until January. Maybe his assessment of the budget now negates the statement in resume with regard to the current budget. I don't know. An argument could be made, that you, Dan Ryan of the Mayor's Kitchen cabinet, are out to defame Cauthen.
Funkhouser, Hermann, Skaggs, and Johnson are not people with whom you can work. They like to destroy people. I think Funky (whatever happened to the EEOC thing?) lied to the people and to the council when he argued for the termination of the Manager's contract in October of 07. Why don't you write about that too?
CDM2P -
I'm not defaming anyone - I just noticed that he was forthright in his budget memo, and I remembered he made big claims about our financial health on his resume. I put the two documents together, and it doesn't look very good, does it?
How dare you point out that Wayne Cauthen lied on his resume?! That's mean! Why can't you just ignore it, like the rest of us would prefer to do? We ignored his travel expense lies, and we want to ignore this, too.
Don't you realize that Funkhouser is bad, and we can say whatever we like about him and his family, whether it's true or not? And if Funk doesn't like Cauthen, that means we do like Cauthen, and you can't say truthful things about him if they make him look bad?
You're so blinded by the Funk that you probably think the SCLC lost moral authority when it launched a defense of Michael Vick!
I takes a very hateful individual to do the research you have done
And there, ladies and gentlemen, you have it. Political success in a nutshell. Whether based on partisan, ideological, or faith reasons, or for sheer lazy ass stupidity, there's the attitude that permits politicians to do whatever the hell they please with and to our city, our country. Loyalty over competence, faith over honesty, authority over truth. And these people vote. Be afraid; be very afraid.
Impartial Observer, Cauthen can be fired for any reason whatsoever, and demonstrating a willingness to lie on a resume suffices for me. It ought to suffice for everyone.
An argument could be made, that you, Dan Ryan of the Mayor's Kitchen cabinet, are out to defame Cauthen.
But that argument would suck, and necessarily rely on a flawed understanding of defamation and its affirmative defenses.
An argument could also be made that you, anonymous guy on the internet of unknown allegiance, is throwing around "defamation" and "hateful" in an attempt to pressure Dan not to discuss publicly available documents that reflect poorly on Cauthen. But that argument would be boring because it's so obvious. The funny part is how clueless you are to think that Dan would be impressed by your intimidation technique.
CDM2P, Who has Russ Johnson destroyed? You claimed he likes to destroy people, but you don't point out any specifics.
When Dan had something to say about Cauthen, he brought documents and proved his case. I think you're just making shit up.
I agree with Reasons and Jerry. It's a difference in opinion on how formulas used. I am sure that he could easily give you a reason for his statement. Plus, did Cauthen give a specific year? Maybe he has balanced a budget sometime during his time here, who knows? because I dont. But the point is that the comment you keep using is i believe addressing the 2008 budget presented but the comment from his resume doesn't give a year, which could mean that he is talking about another year's budget right?
Also, with much respect I agree with some people on the point that your negative posts seem to only focus on people that the Mayor is focusing on at that moment. I remember you advising the Mayor at one point in time, and I think that you still do, so is that really a far stretch? I think not.
Funny how nobody defending Cauthen has pointed to a budget that wasn't structurally imbalanced according to his own definition. Instead, they want to talk about Dan. Strange . . .
Nobody answered Dan's question from last night - "Even if I sat in a meeting with Ms. Hermann, Mr. Skaggs, Mayor Funkhouser, Mr. Miller and Ms. Squitiro, and they ordered me to write exactly what I wrote, would that make the lies on Mr. Cauthen's resume somehow acceptable?"
I'll answer - no, it wouldn't.
Why should he go negative on the Mayor and his supporters? Don't you think I do a good enough job of that? I don't need Dan's help!
Anonymous 11:34 - WOW!!
Dan is harder on those he disagrees with than on those he likes?!?!
OMG!
Let's call a blogger ethics panel!
Question: What is worse than a liar?
Answer: Those apologist for that liar.
Is it any wonder our society has so many ills?
I doubt Dan feels intimidated by anything that might ressemble an accusation or intimidation. He is an attorney. He knows what he can and cannot say and still remain within the bounds of acceptable speech. That's what attorneys do. Actually, I find it kind of ironic that an attorney is accusing a lay person of ethical and moral breaches.
The issue here is a perceived lie. If Dan is such a stickler for the truth however, why doesn't he write about how Funkhouser lied about wanting to enter into a contract with Cauthen only to turn around, negotiate in bad faith, and actually attempt to unilaterally fire him in complete disregard of the City's charter?
How about this lie from Funkhouser: Gloria adds an "ee" at the end of words as a term of endearement. Aside from being a laughable excuse, not a single person has corroborated that statement, at least not publicly. Isn't a statement of that nature without corroboration a lie? And since the statement was made to fend off an EEOC complaint, couldn't you argue that he lied to support his wife's violation of somebody's civil rights?
How about this other lie: he told us all along that he supported Semler's freedom of association. Then he tells Hendricks that he really needs Semler so that the Northland folks will support his plans for the "vulnerable" folks from the east side. In other words, he doesn't care about her freedom of association. She is a political pawn. Not only that. He then has the gall to tell Semler not to participate in any MCDC events. How does that support her freedom of association?
Cauthen may be crooked. He may be a bad manager, although in my judgement he has been better than any before him in the last 20 years.
If telling the truth is a golden standard, then lets apply that golden standard to everyone. I think you will find that Mr. Mark-ee Funkhouser wouldn't survive that test.
I guess some lies are better than others.
Um Dan. Wayne is looking for a job OUTSIDE of Kansas City.
He did balance the budget. I think he even got a few streets paved with gold. Wayne is super awesome. Any city would be blessed to have him.
Why don't you give those numbers a second look. I'll think you will then agree that Wayne is super awesome.
wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more.
No if we can just find that 80K.
Attack, attack, attack, CDM2P. Keep up the attack on me. But how about that lie I found. How about the fact that Wayne Cauthen defined what a structurally balanced budget is, and has never submitted one, though he claims in his resume that he corrected the problem? Why am I suddenly so fascinating, instead of Wayne Cauthen's lie on his resume?
One more thing . . .
I blogged incessantly in support of Funkhouser during the election. I am a former supporter, anonymous to him as well.
I remain anonymous because I have a lot lose. Part of me thinks that Funkhouser can still pull it together and be successful.
Right now I'm not even sure he can implement his own agenda because his perspective is so jaded by the opinions of Johnson, Hermann and Skaggs, all of whom hate Cauthen for one reason or another.
He cannot afford to look bad making Cauthen look bad. That's scorched earth politics. That doesn't work, not when he's hanging by a thread.
I probably will temper my criticism of Funkhouser in the hope that he cleans up. But frankly, he has done a lot of damage to his reputation and this community. If the opportunity comes, I will vote to get rid of him.
And no, I'm not related to c3po.
Dan,
I'm not attacking you. I'm sure you are upstanding citizen that pays his taxes and helps old ladies. I'm certain you uphold the principles of your profession quite well and wouldn't dare make accusations that could be considered outside of the legal boundaries which you are sworn to uphold.
I want to understand your standards for acceptable and unacceptable lying. Won't please help me?
a nudge is as good as a wink to a blind bat!
Say No More!
You're wife, does she.... "go"?
Nudge nudge wink wink... say no more.... SAY NO MORE!!
CDM2P
I frankly don't believe that is what you are attempting to do. I think you're trying to distract the issue away from Cauthen's lie. That's why you haven't defended it, or shown where he corrected the city's structurally imbalanced budget, as he claimed to have done.
Each of the claims you make is bogus.
1. First, you claim there's irony in an attorney accusing a lay person of ethical and moral breaches. Where's the irony?
2. Then you claim that Mark lied about trying to negotiate with Cauthen. How so? Cauthen refused to go along with citizen satisfaction, so he the negotiations fell apart. No bad faith on either part. Cauthen worked for years to be judged by developer satisfaction, and he balked at being measured by citizen satisfaction.
3. As for the "ee" thing, I know Mark isn't lying. That's all I'm going to say on that. You may feel free to disbelieve him, and I won't even knock you on it. But you're wrong, and the EEOC will see things my way.
4. He supported Semler's freedom of association. The fact that it may have helped with the Northland (actually, I wonder if it did much good, but that's another issue) doesn't mean he didn't support her freedom of association. Semler's claim that he somehow forebad her from going to a convention lacks credibility - what was he going to do about it? Again, you don't have any proof of a lie, do you?
Now, there's 4 distractions, and none of them meet the standard of proof I put out there. I quoted Cauthen's resume, and I quoted his budget memo, and they didn't add up, did they?
Why is it that you want to keep on distracting people from the central point in this post? Why are you so desperately throwing up other issues and distractions? Why can't you address Wayne's resume claim and explain how it is anything other than a disgraceful lie?
What do you think of political candidates who pirate other candidates Web sites?
Dan,
Responses to your questions:
1. Lawyers live in gray areas and every single one I know will do anything for the almighty dollar or to win an argument. Ethics disappear when you try to win at all costs.
2. Funkhouser withheld Cauthen's counter proposal from the rest of the Council. When the final contract was revealed, the only area of disagreement was the one related to crime and burglaries, items over which Cauthen has no authority. So even the statement that Cauthen did not want to work for citizens satisfaction is a lie. Cauthen agreed to more than what Funkhouser thought he would.
3. I guess you are corroborating Funkhouser's statement on the "ee" thing. I know some of the people that worked at the double wide that never heard Gloria call anybody mammy. I guess you are now choosing to be an accomplice on that one.
4. Everyone who disagrees with Funkhouser is a liar. Are you now saying that Semler lied when she said Funkhouser asked her to refrain from participating in the MCDC event? I thought Funkhouser aknowledged asking her to do as much during his flubbed conference call. Are you so upset with Ms. Semler that you are willing to misrepresent her statements? I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you probably overlooked some facts.
You haven't met any standard of proof with regard to the 4 issues I raised. It's a gray area, at best, but I guess that's the kind of thing that butters your bread.
I think the connection you have made between the resume and the budget transmittal letter is a stretch. A statement carefully crafted to insinuate malfeseance.
So I turn the question to you. Why aren't you as critical of the lies Funkhouser has heaped upon the citizens of Kansas City? If lying is such a golden standard, why not ask both Funkhouser and Cauthen to resign? I will agree that Cauthen lied on his resume if you agree that Funkhouser lied about his support for Ms. Semler and on the contract negotiations.
The reason you won't agree to that, Dan, is simple: the purpose of your post is to destroy a man's reputation by putting out there the kinds of words that when connected together appear more gruesome than they really are. The words "lied on his resume" send the kind of simple message that resonates clearly with a voting public that, sadly, has become accustomed to getting their political beliefs from bumper stickers and slogans.
It's a cheap shot, Dan. Part of the hatchet job being orchestrated by Funkhouser to nullify the new contract with Cauthen. That's the real reason behind your post.
Anonymous 10:33 -
I have no idea what you mean by candidates "pirating" others' websites. From the way you describe it, it sounds like we should make them walk the plank, but I'd have to know a whole lot more about circumstances before opining.
CDM2p =
There you go again. Bogus attacks on lawyers, distracting, unproven claims, and NO EXPLANATION OF WHY IT'S OKAY THAT CAUTHEN LIED ON HIS RESUME! But this time you offer a shining prize - you will admit to what I have proven if I agree with your unproven claims.
CDM2P, you vastly overestimate how much I care about what you think. You're a pseudonymous commenter with absolutely no credibility beyond the truthfulness and persuasiveness of your words, and that's not very much so far.
The only reason I've even engaged in this much conversation with you is to make certain that other readers don't fall for your misleading tactics, and to redirect the attention to Cauthen's resume, which you have done everything possible to prevent, short of posting nude pictures of Elle MacPherson.
Once again, your fundamental thrust is misguided. What would it matter if I accepted your handful of half-truths and lies, and agreed with you on one of your lies. Let's say I went along with the Semler one - even though you claim he "told her not to participate in any MCDC events", which was a lie, and now that I have called you on it, you've backed down to claiming he "asked her to refrain from participating in the MCDC event", which is a vastly different thing. Now, assuming that I somehow fell for your original lie - so what? Would that make Cauthen's lie on his resume any better?
You've failed to convince me that Funkhouser has lied to me. I've met Mark, talked with him, seen how he reacts during the pressure of a campaign, and seen the most vicious participants in an orchestrated campaign against him take their best shots, and I still haven't seen anyone produce evidence of a lie nearly as damning as the lie I have proven here. Sure, you can argue circumstantial evidence suggests that he didn't really want Cauthen, but the failure of negotiation is more plausible to me than your bizarre conspiracy theory. But I have Cauthen's words to prove my point. Cauthen's vividly contrasting words.
I suspect by now that any remaining readers can see through your shifting words and attempts at distracting the point. Go ahead and believe that Funkhouser lied, if you want, even in the absence of proof.
But then face the fact that Cauthen claimed to have corrected a structurally imbalanced budget, and join me in my calls for his resignation or termination.
Dan, I hate to break this news to you.
And btw, I'm no fan of Wayne.
But his statement was that he fixed an imbalanced budget, he didn't claim to fix the structural imbalance itself.
Structurally imbalanced budget in this context is an adjective to an individual budget.
He's claiming to have balanced a budget, that was structurally imbalanced.
Just like I would fix a flat tire, because my car had imbalanced wheels.
"I fixed the flat tire on my imbalanced car" doesn't mean I balanced the tires and fixed that problem, it simply means I fixed the flat tire.
It's very important, Dan, to pay attention to what people ACTUALLY SAY before you call them liars.
Don't you think?
:o)
Mainstream - I think the petard on which you are attempting to hoist Dan is broken. Cauthen's actual words are "Corrected the city’s previously structurally imbalanced budget." This statement is a claim that he corrected its structural imbalance, is it not? (I suppose that it could be argued that the claim that he made a correction - any correction, even a typographical correction - to a previously structurally imbalanced budget, but did not correct its structural imbalance, but such a strained reading would indicate a malicious level of misdirection, wouldn't you agree?) The budget has not has its structural imbalance corrected, has it?
It's like if, in your car analogy, you listed on your resume "corrected my car's previously unbalanced alignment". If you just fixed a tire, and did not fix the alignment, you would be lying.
And those are Cauthen's words.
Well, regardless of the intent we want to read into the statement, I can only go off of what was exactly said.
Wayne stated he fixed the budget, and described the budget as structurally imbalanced.
He didn't say he fixed the structural imbalance. He described the budget as being structurally imbalanced.
There's a big difference.
I could go on for hours about how I don't like Wayne's micromanagement of the city, and that decisions are delayed and mismanaged because everybody's walking around on pins & needles waiting to hear what Wayne wants to do. Wayne's not that good of a manager.
I could go on about the fact that Wayne doesn't manage objectives and decision-making down through his organization.
But that's not the subject of this post. The subject of this post is about a specific claim on his resume.
And that specific claim is that he fixed a budget. Not a structural imbalance. A structurally imbalanced budget.
If I told you I eliminated (fixed) the pain of a chronically-ill (structurally imbalanced) patient (budget), what did I do?
I described the patient as chronically ill, but I didn't fix his chronic condition, I was was describing the patient to give the reader a better appreciation for the job that I did.
It's pretty clear what Wayne was doing here - he wasn't just fixing any 'ole budget, he was fixing one that was structurally imbalanced - presumably a more difficult job.
So Wayne is guilty of portraying his budget-fixing abilities as incredible because he had a very difficult budget to fix.
This isn't wordsmithing here, it understanding what was written on the page. "Structurally imbalanced" is used as an adjective that modifies a noun - "budget".
I suggest there are plenty of other opportunities to criticize Wayne other than taking one sentence out of context.
But he wasn't lying, he was seeling his abilities, and there's a difference if you are dedicated to actually understanding what people say and not taking it out of context.
Dan, I think you understand the point I'm trying make here.
"selling his abilities" not seeling them, sorry.
Mainstream -
I think you're trying to be sarcastic, but I'm not certain.
If a doctor puts on his resume "Cured a cancerous patient", you believe he means that he's not claiming to have cured the cancer, he's probably just talking about ridding him of the flu?
If that's the case, it's not a matter of intellectual dishonesty, that would be intellectual depravity.
Fire Cauthen Wednesday...
I've learned one thing, not that it's relevant, but you don't know squat about cars. LOL
Balance has nothing to do with alignment.
Mainstream...
What Wayne actually put in his resume is "Corrected the city’s previously structurally imbalanced budget." His wording is just plain poor. If he did anything to change it, it would have, of course been "previous".
As your automobile analogy has caught on…
If you stated that you corrected the problem with your cars previously flat out-of-balance tire; I would assume that you fixed the flat and balanced the tire and wheel. It is possible that you just fixed the flat, but the statement is not clear. What the heck, it’s you car, maybe the vibration helps to put you to sleep. :>)
Nonetheless, the real question that needs to be addressed is; did Wayne Cauthen lie to the citizens of Kansas City when he created this resume? -I don't think so. I think he lied to Austin, or at the very least, deceived them, but he never sent this resume to Kansas City.
I don't think we will ever know whether or not Wayne's resume was just poorly worded, or down-right deceptive, but it should give us cause to look a little closer.
Dan...
I'm not saying that Wayne did not lie on his resume. To me, it appears that he did.
If he didn't lie to the citizens of KC, how should that effect his status in KC?
Fair question, Whistleblower. The answer lies in a misunderstanding about the nature of the employment relationship. You don't have to be the "wronged" party to fire someone based on dishonesty. If he had committed bank fraud instead of resume fraud, we could fire him, even if the City doesn't own the bank.
Maybe I have an unusually strict view of resumes, having been involved with a lot of hiring (and firing). But when someone lies on a resume, they are exhibiting a truly debased sense of morality. They are attempting to deceive a potential employer. They are exhibiting a willingness to lie to advance their own benefit to the detriment of the employer and any other applicant. They are exhibiting the kind of "Me first, and screw the rest of you" attitude that I think is the root of much personal evil.
As someone else pointed out, it's exactly the kind of attitude that could lead someone to charge the city for extravagant travel unrelated to work.
Dan,
I'd love to keep arguing with you but as they say, don't argue with idiots . . . after a while those watching can't tell the difference.
Besides, there's a certain petition that I need to go sign.
Point of clarification - I should point out that I don't know the specifics of Cauthen's employment contract, which may include language which could alter the normal right to fire.
(But if it prevents the city from firing someone dishonest, it's a bad contract.)
Actually Dan, I'm being half serious.
If you believe we have a "structural" problem, all of our budget deficits are caused by the imbalance. (btw, there seem to be widely varying definitions)
So, the budget put forth prior to approval has a defcit, caused by a structural imbalance.
If I, mainstream, figure out the right cuts and tradeoffs to make, and balance the budget (or even help the cause) I can lay claim to correcting a structurally imabalanced budget, right or wrong?
I'm only again simply suggesting the adjectival function of the term "structurally imbalance" in the turn of phrase used.
That's all.
Dan, you nailed it! "Me first, and screw the rest of you"
That's been Cauthen's response to the council's questions. He threw 3 or 4 employees under the bus last Wednesday. Tune in tomorrow. See how many more will be "rewarded" in such a way for trying to appease the unethical egotistic tyrant.
This is truly surreal.
Funk's leadership style, per his commentyesterday afternoon:
"When I was auditor, the only way they could get rid of me was for them to accept my audit or hope that I got hit by a car."
Versus Wayne's leadership style of "my way or the highway"; bullying arrogance; micromanagement; mismanagement and his constant need to assert his power.
No wonder these guys don't get along.
I think you need to understand search firms....they will create your resume for you to submit to their client....its apparent you aren't in this field and don't understand the process so he didn't create this, the search firm did so he did not lie or provide mis information, the serach firm did.
I think you need to understand the truth. I have, in fact, spent 5 years in the search business, and was a board member of the state association. The candidate is ALWAYs responsible for the truth and accuracy of what is on his or her resume. ALWAYS. Anybody who claims otherwise is a liar.
That was funny. Way to spank the dumbshit, Dan. Next thing you know, they'll claim you don't understand beer.
Post a Comment
<< Home