Comments on: Stainbrook admits recording phone conversations on Andrew Z amid e-mail campaign

By: kateb

kateb — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 23:48:18 +0000

LisaRenee wrote:

You are bad Sir John, and I’d be firmer with you if I wasn’t afraid of you releasing that audio tape you have of me.

LMAO….

By: meghan

meghan — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 23:31:39 +0000

Brian Maxson wrote:

It’s crystal clear that if Jon successfully achieves his brass ring of making it to the Board of Elections, Lucas County is more screwed than the LCRP.

So sad and so true. Hope all of you were able to read the Toledo Free Press piece by Michael Miller. It was not only hysterical but spot on!
http://www.toledofreepress.com/2009/02/26/the-stainbrook-tapes/

By: Brian Maxson

Brian Maxson — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 11:12:46 +0000

I know that Olman’s “lying” exposed the Chairman of the Lucas County Republican Party as a tape-recording, media-manipulating freak with a few convicts as assistants.

It’s crystal clear that if Jon successfully achieves his brass ring of making it to the Board of Elections, Lucas County is more screwed than the LCRP.

I can’t wait to see who Jon’s next target is to achieve this goal.

And to think, this is the Republican’s fault. lol

By: historymike

historymike — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 04:07:41 +0000

I think – as several astute posters have noted – that Olman simply was doing what happens all the time when a person gets terminated: he provided a public version that allowed the canned worker to save face.

Is this “lying?” Only in a technical sense. In my old business I fired more people than I could ever remember (I had five retail businesses with about 120 employees at any given time, and I probably employed 3,000 different people in a decade as a small business owner). One manager got caught stealing, but I allowed him to quit to save face and avoid unemployment hassles.

Is that “lying,” or did I allow someone who made some poor decisions a chance to start over fresh someplace else?

I remember another manager who was highly ineffective in people management, but who was honest and worked hard. Should I have written up the paperwork to document how this manager cried and hid in the office for three hours one day, or should I “lie” and write a letter of recommendation that discussed that the person’s position was being eliminated and that I would rehire her?

For Stainbrook to trumpet this as “lying” is to miss the obvious point, which is that Olman wanted to let the former employee go without making the search for a new job any harder.

If anything, all that Olman is guilty of is being a nice person. Heck, I would hazard a guess that the termination papers and letters of recommendation of 95 percent of my fired employees contained similar “lies.” It’s more about moving on after a termination than it is hyper-diligence to “truth.”

Besides, when you let a fired employee leave with some dignity and the ability to use the last job on applications and resumes, you don’t have nearly as many problems with wrongful termination lawsuits or libel/slander accusations, and ex-employees are a lot more likely to feel like they were treated fairly. Who knows – maybe Olman’s “lying” helped avert a wrongful discharge lawsuit.

By: LisaRenee

LisaRenee — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 23:49:38 +0000

You are bad Sir John, and I’d be firmer with you if I wasn’t afraid of you releasing that audio tape you have of me.

By: sir john talbot

sir john talbot — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 23:44:05 +0000

LisaRenee wrote:

Anyone who does not believe there is a difference between a private conversation and a public one raise your hand…

I think I saw Mindy’s hand go up, she doesn’t seem to understand much.
(couldn’t help myself, sorry)

By: LisaRenee

LisaRenee — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 19:06:00 +0000

Realizing this thread has gone way off track, if we return to the actual incidence of Jon Stainbrook playing the tape recording of Lynn Olman, the Blade article does not suggest that Olman lied, to the contrary Olman admitted that was exactly what he said to Stainbrook but that it was a private conversation. Stainbrook is the only one who has made the accusation that Olman lied. What the article does point out is that there is a difference from what Patrick Kriner stated and what Lynn Olman stated to Jon Stainbrook regarding Lyonette. That doesn’t make Olman or Kriner a liar, all it means is that there was a difference in what Kriner stated publicly and Olman stated privately. Anyone who does not believe there is a difference between a private conversation and a public one raise your hand…Now if Olman had been asked publicly about this and had given a different answer, maybe it would be a larger issue. However, if I had a dollar for each time someone told me something off the record that they wouldn’t say in public? I’d have enough to own an island where I would enjoy lots of little drinks with umbrellas…I’d also point out many of those “off the record dollars” would have come from Jon Stainbrook himself…

Link to original article that started this chain of discussion.

By: kateb

kateb — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 17:57:57 +0000

Yes it is some strange stuff – I hope he answers for his behavior.

By: mindy

mindy — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 17:35:40 +0000

Hi Kate,

Thanks for mentioning that the original question I had has still not been answered…(question beeing why would Olman have different stories one for the chairman and one for other people). That really was some weird stuff up there, wasn’t it?

Not Again: Hottie??? Me??? Yeah, right! I am all that, just ask me!

Talbot: Suga momma??? You gotta be kidding me! I do have a job (a great one) and kid in college…pretty much disposing of the disposable income!

Enjoy the day, all.

By: kateb

kateb — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 02:16:45 +0000

The only thing I got out of this exchange of eewww’ing, ooh’ing and aah’ing and name calling is Mindy gave me some food for thought.

That is the burning question.