Matthew 6:24 -- King James Bible
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
I never went to Sunday School, but I guess that verse is analogous to being about fiduciary duty. Consider an if-them proposition: If an agent's primary duty of undivided loyalty is to Indiana folks providing ongoing employment and wanting to impose a monstrous multi-million dollar second mortgage high-risk position upon an innocent city; neither the Indianans nor city officials are God - while apparently mammon flows from each to the agent; then who do you believe the agent will loyally serve? The regular paycheck Indianans, or the for-an-interval consultancy? ANSWER: He will say no problem, the interests do not conflict and the home-town dudes in Indiana wanting to gamble with Ramsey city money think alike with the city officials entrusted to shepherd taxpayer money prudently, but who appear poised and ready, eager even, to play multi-million-dollar-stakes banker-gambler games, taking big time risk in unprecedented ways and amounts (but not personally out of pocket), while joyously also playing savant land promoter and playing it all to the hilt as if not an errant pack of fools. Because they are as they are, the Ramsey wannabes and the sophisticated home-state old boys; I suggest the interests of my two masters do not differ (as if God and mammon were in fact allied in betting the horses, in a rental land deal sense).
An online definition: disingenuity;disingenuousness: Generally, the quality of being disingenuous and lacking candor. Here: 1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating. 2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.
Usage Note: The meaning of disingenuous has been shifting about lately, as if people were unsure of its proper meaning. Generally, it means "insincere" and often seems to be a synonym of cynical or calculating. Not surprisingly, the word is used often in political contexts, [...]
Then, there is this, regarding city officials' fiducial status, and the fiducial status of paid consultants - and please have the memory span to recall Matthew 6:24 while reading -
Black's Law Dictionary describes a fiduciary relationship as "one founded on trust or confidence reposed by one person in the integrity and fidelity of another." A fiduciary has a duty to act primarily for the client's benefit in matters connected with the undertaking and not for the fiduciary's own personal interest. Scrupulous good faith and candor are always required. Fiduciaries must always act in complete fairness and may not ever exert any influence or pressure, take selfish advantage, or deal with the client in such a way that it benefits themselves or prejudices the client. Business shrewdness, hard bargaining, and taking advantage of the forgetfulness or negligence of the client are totally prohibited by a fiduciary.
As fiduciaries, financial planners must make fair and complete disclosure of all material facts and must employ reasonable care to avoid misleading their clients. The utmost good faith is required in all their dealings. Simply put, fiduciaries must exhibit the highest form of trust, fidelity and confidence, and are expected to act in the best interest of their clients at all times.
The distinction between a financial planner with a fiduciary interest and a salesperson is crucial. A financial planner, under common law and by some statutes, is a fiduciary. A financial planner must always provide services and advice in the best interests of the client. Whereas salespeople may have their own motives and interests at heart and offer goods and services for a price, a fiduciary must serve the client, if necessary at the cost of the fiduciary's own interests.
It is generally believed that fiduciaries perform their trades for reasons other than money and feel a sense of responsibility that goes beyond simply making a living. To paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Brandeis: "It is an occupation which is pursued largely for others and not merely for oneself. It is an occupation in which the amount of financial return is not the accepted measure of success."
Cutting to the quick.
Can YOU find any possible disingenuity/disingenuousness within any of the following (hint, don't rely on any added underlining or marginalia, I just put it there randomly with no particular purpose - disingenuously)
This Google.
Screenshots - Part One: Telling you online who Ryan Cronk is and who bosses him to expect him to say, "Yes sir, right away sir. I owe you my undivided loyalty." Click a thumbnail image to enlarge and read:
Plus, this hummer, for rectitude and honest candor between the world on the web, and guys who were big-timers at the ICSC Shopping Center Love-In:
"Cronk, LLC." That's a crock. Or a Cronk. Whichever, can you say token fig-leaf empty-shell intermediary with little purpose but to confuse and deceive when the guy is and at all relevant times always was an employee-affiliate-insider at Flaherty-Collins?
Otherwise, aside from intent to confuse, why do it? To interpose an empty pocket against liability? Owning what, for creditors to chase, beyond two desks, a filing cabinet, a trash pail and pencil sharpener? If that. Office machines rented, from Flaherty-Collins?
EITHER WAY, GIVE ME A BREAK. "DOES NOT HAVE MANAGERS" the Indiana SoS filing notes.
It seems Cronk's loyalty is purchased and owned by Flaherty-Collins. End of story - Part One.
Screenshots Part Two: Telling it as fiducial city officials want us to think and to know about who Ryan Cronk is, with you to guess why there is rampant circumspection. Meeting minutes:
The official full disclosure online meeting agenda, letting you know all you should need to know or might want to know, in advance of the key meeting reported in prior screenshots. Go figure.
Staff never forwarded any full agenda to me by email. Zippo for the proletariat-citizens, I guess. With Socialized land development promotions, keep things between the GOP developer-official apparatchik elite. The prols don't need to know. Except, of course, for what's above. Which as noted does not include the information that Ryan Cronk, first and foremost, is a Flaherty & Collins tool.
One additional observation. When somebody wants to sell you stock and puts out a prospectus, there is no fiduciary relationship - it is purchase and sale and buyer beware, except for a requirement that the prospectus, the written paper-trail record, cannot lawfully be written with the capacity and intent to defraud; with, this is the important part, affirmative fraud and fraud by omission being tightly but well defined and distinguished within SEC Rule 10b-5(b), giving a flavor of fair writing not authored to mislead:
If those minutes were in a prospectus - what defense? We were anticipating the future, and nobody has a crystal ball. Fine enough, except that the status of Greeby and more particularly Cronk were material and omitted so that the remainder of want was said was misstatement via material factual omission. A misleading non-disclosure if ever there was one, together with an affirmative slanting of what was said to lead a reasonable reader to think Greeby and Cronk were merely Landform subordinates reporting to Lazan without loyalties running elsewhere to counter-party interests in contemplated dealings. Detail of that kind could have been stated. I wonder if drafts and revisions of minutes remain in city computer files. I would like to see the versions and reversions. Who revised what to reach final form. It could be relevant and material evidence of an intent.
____________________________________
WITHOUT THAT MAILING THE THING SURE SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN DELIBERATELY KEPT UNDER A HAT - BY OUR FIDUCIARY OFFICIALS - OWING TAXPAYERS THEIR UNDIVIDED LOYALTY AND RESPONSIBLE FOR PRUDENT HANDLING OF PUBLIC MONEY. IT WAS AN EYE OPENER FOR ME. DECIDE FOR YOURSELF -- WAS THAT MAILING IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST?
That anonymous mailing -- It got me to Googling. Previously, from city minutes, (screenshots above) I inferred that a "Landform Management Team" was a team, from Landform, designated by Landform, as involved in Management. Otherwise, they'd be calling it something like "The COR Management Team."
That would be a non-misleading name.
Minutes from April 7, 2010 (see above) are written having that "Landform Management Team" flavor and suggestion, without much if any counter-indication disclosed. I wonder about the mailing list in use by that person or persons authoring the mailing. So far I am aware of three former Ramsey council members who tell me they were mail recipients. I have seen a copy, scanned and emailed to me by a recipient. It is posted in a prior Crabgrass item. I forwarded it to Sakry at ABC Newspapers, who I expect would want to interview the authoring personnel on the record. (I am not on any mailing list of the author(s), or so far have not been. Presumably the thing only targeted consequential people.)
A few coincidental thoughts.
 |
| I am Ben Dover, the Ramsey taxpayer. Flaherty-Collins wants to bend me over. Putting their lackey into the saddle as Landform Management Team agent-expert having "Role or Ryan Cronk - Deal Structuring and Financing." The lackey then saying, City, gamble away eight million. It's in YOUR interest. How's that for deal structuring? Show me the money. Show it to my bosses. Taking in a half-year's flow of city cash before dumping that "fiduciary" load. It is hard to pull the wool over the eyes of a thin tin man, with eyes always open. Perpetually - until I rust away. Some across the street, and pals, seem to have tried. City officials handing to the long-term FC errand-man a financing say --- It reminds me of old-saying images. The thin tin guy IS inedible, but look at that Chicken. I'd not want that to be a taxpaying bird. |
 |
| A half-year on the job. On behalf of the chickens. |
Second coincidental thought;
The Question.