Mayor Funkhouser issues statement on settlement of lawsuit

The mayor’s office just released this statement regarding Mayor Mark Funkhouser’s decision to settle his part of the lawsuit filed against him by former office worker Ruth Bates. Funkhouser uses the release to reiterate that he and his wife were the real victims — he says it all stems from an “abuse of a friendship.” The statement follows:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 5, 2008

Yesterday, the City Council rejected my proposal to settle the Ruth Bates lawsuit, which had continued to be sensationalized beyond any of the merits of the case. The idea of even thinking about settling this lawsuit is against my principles, because I know that the allegations are baseless and that there was no wrongdoing of any kind in my office.. However, even though the City Council rejected my proposal for a global settlement of this case, I have now settled the part of this lawsuit over which I had singular control. I offered this settlement because I thought it was in the best financial interests of the City, and to stop the attorney’s fees, which the City Council forced the City to incur by engaging a private attorney to represent me.

I also was unwilling to settle before this time because I needed to protect my good reputation through sworn testimony. The depositions Gloria and I gave under oath provided a chance to confront and refute the allegations for the public record.

When I ran for mayor, I said I would be smart with the money. This settlement proposal of yesterday would have been financially smart for both me and the City. Here’s why: An earlier settlement offer from Bates’ attorney was for $250,000. After my wife and advisor, Gloria Squitiro, and I gave our sworn depositions, the settlement offer dropped to $135,000. At that level, the cost-benefit analysis that I did with regard to this case tilted strongly in favor of trying to settle the case at relatively modest amounts, rather than needlessly continuing to incur substantial legal fees as the case was prepared for trial. Although I am positive that we would prevail at trial, a global settlement would bring this matter to a close now.

Given the world financial crisis, it’s important that the City move on and devote additional time, money and energy to the looming budget issues facing the great city of Kansas City. The City Council, by its lack of action, again proved one of the points I have been saying over and over about the lawsuit and the attacks against the First Lady and me — the attacks have been, are now and apparently will continue to be nothing but politically motivated. Some city council members appear determined to undermine my leadership, instead of supporting my positions on doing what is the right thing at the right time for the city.

I will continue to stand up for Kansas City. I will continue to be smart with the City’s money. I will continue to be honest with our residents, even if at times there may be a personal price that I have to pay.

The only reason the City Council rejected my proposal for settlement of this matter was to oppose me, even though their decision in all likelihood will cost the City more money in the long run. Simply put, the City Council did not put the best interests of the city first on this issue.

Additionally, now that depositions in the lawsuit have been made public, let me take this opportunity to reiterate how Gloria and I have been victimized by this unfortunate situation. Our depositions make a clear case that this lawsuit was about vindictiveness and political opportunism. Here’s how:

   — When Ms. Bates joined our election campaign, it quickly became clear that her support for me had more to do with her animosity toward my opponent, Alvin Brooks, than her excitement over my candidacy. Ms. Bates was mad at him. She constantly pressed our campaign strategists to smear Alvin’s good name. However, that’s something we would not do. That was not the right thing to do. I had and still have great respect for Alvin and his work in our community. In hindsight, this was an early indication that Ms. Bates might seek out creative ways to improve her position at the expense of others.

   — Within months of Ms. Bates joining my office staff, she asked to borrow $5,000 from my wife. Ms. Bates said it was for her sister. However, having just come off of a campaign, we did not personally have $5,000 in cash. We did not lend her the money. A couple of months later, Ms. Bates filed her baseless lawsuit against my wife and me. The timing of these events is a remarkable coincidence.
   — For 15 years, as our friends, Ms. Bates and her family were a part of our social group. When Ms. Bates first joined the mayor’s office, she continued to have a cheerful personality and engaged in the playful banter that close-knit offices and families often have. However,      around the time she asked my wife for $5,000, her personality in the office completely changed. She became demanding. She demanded that Gloria immediately arrange a pay raise for her, even before she had been in the Mayor’s office six months.
   — She also demanded that I force Francis Semler to resign. When her demands were not complied with, Ms. Bates began to fabricate and exaggerate unfavorable comments about both Gloria and me. The Semler issue put a strain on my relationship with the City Council, but Ms. Bates’ actions served to exacerbate that strain. It eventually prompted the City Council to develop the so-called “volunteer” ordinance that has barred the First Lady from serving me in my office. Those actions put a great burden on my already over-worked staff and, not surprisingly, some of them decided that the stress was not worth the job.

In conclusion, as our videotaped depositions point out, Ms. Bates’ was not a victim in this case. This case resulted from an abuse of a friendship. Ms. Bates took advantage of our familiarity and the comfortable relationship and unguarded banter we shared with her as a friend. In addition, Ruth Bates was used by those who differ with my leadership style
and my ideas to move this city forward.

As much as I would like to go to trial to prove to the good people of Kansas City that no racial slur was ever uttered by my wife or tolerated in the Mayor’s office, it also is my responsibility to be the first and best financial steward of the City.

Now that I have settled with Ms. Bates for a nominal sum of city money instead of incurring substantial amounts of attorney’s fees, I hope the City Council will put aside politics and put the City’s financial interests first and foremost.