top of page

The 600k Response

600K RESPONSE: THE FACTS ABOUT TAXPAYER MONEY & TRANSPARENCY

​First and foremost, remember this is your tax money. The primary issue with the $600K overspending on the consultant's contract was and is about a lack of transparency to both residents and council.

​

What statements made by candidates are true is is EASY to determine . . .  
All meetings are on YouTube and all documents provided.


I have provided supporting documents by linking them throughout this page with additional references at the bottom.

 

Don't Let "Facts Not Bull" Hide The Documented Truth

 

While my opponent correctly states the "contract was... publicly approved by the De Soto City Council," let's review the UNDISPUTED facts about how this contract was approved:

 

1. The Contract Was Presented As "Not-To-Exceed" and "Conservative Maximum"

 

2. The Stated Maximum Was Clear

  • The presented maximum: approximately $453,000 total for September 2022-December 2023 (Breakdown)

 

3. The Actual Spending Far Exceeded Approval

  • Actual spending: $1,038,149 - more than double the approved amount (See payment chart)

  • My opponent physically signed every check and knew of the overages

 

4. The Overspending Was Targeted

  • ALL of the overage above the conservative estimate of $180K was for "On Going" EDC support (Breakdown & Actual Invoices 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)

 

5. The Purpose Was Not Disclosed

  • Emails dated February 2023 show my opponent interviewed and hired an Economic Development Consultant (See Email)

  • Why? Because my opponent disliked the leadership at our local Chamber and EDC—a non-profit run by a board of local businesses

  • This was confirmed when my opponent stated in his defense: "The work performed was essential to establishing a professional, functioning Economic Development Department - something De Soto desperately needed after the Panasonic announcement". Look at the scope in the contract.

 

The "Reviewed and Voted On" Myth

 

My opponent claims: "Every invoice was reviewed and voted on in open session, Council member Rob Daniels voted for every one of them."

 

Let's examine this claim:

​

  1. Can my opponent provide a single example where an invoice was presented to council, reviewed, and approved in open session?

  2. The truth about "review":

    • Invoices were NEVER provided to Council until I requested them on January 30, 2024

    • Even then, they were only provided to me, not the full council (Invoices available on request))

    • Council only saw pay ordinances listing EVERYONE to be paid that period, showing only payee and amount ([See attached])

    • No invoice was EVER reviewed or discussed in open session (YouTube example)

    • The only time an invoice came up for discussion was when Councilmember Danny Lane accidentally pulled the wrong item on January 18, 2024 ([See Link])

 

Due Diligence vs. Deception

 

My opponent wants you to believe that "If Councilmember Daniels didn't understand what he was voting on, that's not a failure of transparency, that's a failure of diligence."

 

The truth: Council voted on what was PRESENTED - a contract with a clearly stated maximum amount for ongoing/on-call services.

 

In fall 2022, Council would NEVER have approved a communication and PR consulting contract for over $1 million for 16 months of work.  The CURRENT council would never approve a 16 month 1 million dollar communications consulting contract!

 

The Contract We Actually Approved:

  • Services from September 2022 through December 2023

  • Defined scope of service and cost

  • On-Call/On-Going services with a stated "conservative maximum" under a not-to-exceed amount

 

No Documentation For $600K in Services

 

Another troubling fact:

  • NO supporting documentation exists requesting or defining the work completed for the $600K in overages

  • In March 2025, I requested and received all emails between the consultant and city email addresses

  • NOWHERE in this communication was there a single request for the consultant to do hourly on-call work related to the Chamber/EDC

  • Our City Administrator admitted he could not produce any documentation for $600K worth of services

 

The Legal Interpretation Game

As our City Attorney made clear, he represents the City, not individual councilmembers. In this case, he's acting as a defense attorney for the city's actions.

 

The Contract Debate:

  1. The Contract Summary:

    • The contract is 7 pages with 10 listed items

    • Opening paragraphs state this is a "not to exceed... schedule"

    • Items 1-9 list scope of services and estimated dollar amounts

    • Item 10 lists hourly rates for on-call/ongoing services

    • View the Full Contract 

  2. City Attorney's Interpretation:

    • Claims "not to exceed" applies only to items 1-9

    • Since item 10 has no estimate, it's effectively a blank check

    • Council was NOT made aware of this interpretation when presented

  3. Plain Language Interpretation:

    • "Not-To-Exceed" is an overall statement for the entire contract

    • Items 1-9 define scope of work

    • Item 10 IS the fee schedule referenced in the "not to exceed" statement

    • Item 5 already DEFINES an estimated cost for "On-Call" services (See Contract)

  4. Contract Conclusion:

    • The contract is legally vague and ambiguous

    • The City Attorney should have recommended clarification before approval

 

Looking At The Complete Evidence

​

When considering all available evidence:

  1. This was presented as a not-to-exceed contract

  2. Ongoing/on-call services were presented with a maximum value

  3. The scope presented to council DID NOT include "establishing a professional, functioning Economic Development Department"

  4. The scope related to the Chamber/EDC included only marketing - nothing else

  5. Challenge each candidates to provide documented evidence supporting their claims about the $600,000 consultant overage.  I have.
    ​ Specifically:

    1. Produce any YouTube recording showing Council discussion of these actual invoices in open session

    2. Share any written directives to the consultant outlining the expanded scope of work that justified this significant expense before the work was done

    3. Share any YouTube links or documents showing council and residents were updated on the expanded scope

 

Other Undisputed Facts:

  • The non-profit's leadership was fired

  • Every recommendation from this consultant related to this non-profit was ultimately rejected

 

Additional Context:

  • I was involved with the consultant's scoped community engagement efforts

  • I served on the Chamber Board as a non-city representative

  • The "Finance Committee" (referred to by Mayor and City as the "EDC Executive Committee") is where directives to the consultant were given regarding EDC

  • This committee included my opponent and Councilman Honomichl

 

​

This is NOT just an election issue:

I've been accused of raising this concern only as a campaign tactic. The truth? This has been a substantial issue for years.

 

At the February 1st, 2024 Council meeting, I STRONGLY addressed these concerns, which were dismissed. I pursued this matter through all available channels until every avenue was exhausted, leaving accountability only possible at the ballot box.

 

This was a key factor in my decision to run for Mayor. The only way to bring accountability to City Hall is through a change in leadership.

​

False Accusations and Outrage:

I've been falsely accused of:

  • Implicating another former councilmember of wrongdoing

  • Claiming our City Administrator wanted a change in Chamber leadership

These claims prove facts don't matter. Read my posts - these accusations are inaccurate and were never stated or implied.

 

Timeline:

  • August 22, 2022: Approval of Original Contract

  • January 19, 2024: Initial discovery of overspending

  • January 30-February 20, 2024: Requests for actual invoices

  • February 1, 2024: Council confrontation about overspending

  • March 25, 2024: Request for all email records

  • April 4, 2024: Additional invoices delivered

  • April 26, 2024: First incomplete email delivery

  • December 21-23, 2024: Final discussions with City Attorney

bottom of page