Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

f§1 :04-cv-00163-GIVIS Document 240-2 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 1 of 3
,,,,,§i1:§lllllilh` CITY MANAGE R’S OFFICE
·=·=4 ‘1~’ CITY OF NEWARK
220 Elkton Road • P.O. Box 390 • Newark, Delaware 19715-0390
302-366-_7ll2.Q_ • Fax 302-366-7160 • http://newark.de.us
May 16, 2006
Paul Cottrell, Esquire l
Tighe, Cottrell & Logan, P.A.
704 N. King Street, Suite 500
P.O. Box 1031
Wilmington, DE l9899
Dear Paul: _
l have recently completed reviewing the reply brief in support of its Motion for `
Reconsideration and Reargument prepared by Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young and felt
compelled to put into writing my impressions as well as share some thoughts. To begin,
it is my understanding that the motion l refer to was prepared by Patrick Kingsley. This
is my belief as he was the only attorney for the surety present during my dates of
deposition. ·
While Mr. Kingsley is clearly irked by my making corrections to my testimony, I have
been advised that the option to make corrections to unclear or misleading responses is my
legal right and in fact on behalf ofthe City of Newark, my responsibility. The motion and
comments related to my testimony, fail to paint a picture I would agree to. The following
is a summary of certain missing pieces:
The motion content ~—
• Fails to acknowledge that my deposition was originally scheduled to be
held over a period of two days. lt subsequently was increased to three
days and then to a fourth day. it is my understanding that this is highly
unusual.
_ o Along the same line - the additional two days were suggested to be
appropriate by Judge Sleet during an off the record conference call
initiated by Pat Kingsley - during which he assured Judge Sleet
that the additional days were necessary as he had new questions
and exhibits to present. In reality, a large number of the Houck
exhibits he presented were the same as those presented by counsel
for the Durkins, Paul Logan. This was disappointing as well as
A Council~Manager City
Committed to Service Excellence

Case 1:04-cv—00163-G|\/IS Document 240-2 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 2 of 3
Paul Cottrell
Page 2
May l7, 2006
enlightening as to his urgency to mislead even the Judge in this case.
• Fails to acknowledge that daring my deposition, admittedly an important
and highly legal exercise, Mr. Kingsley’s behavior was in my viewpoint
, extremely unprofessional. It included his yelling questions at me,
constantly making noises and hufiing and puffing following my answers
to questions and even continually tossing his pen into the air and catching
it directly across the table from me. While at the time l attempted to
ignore his unprofessional and possibly intentional behavior, I have since
had the opportunity to witness his behavior at the deposition of Donald M.
Durkin, Jr. on May l0, 2006. Remarkably, Mr. Kingsley was in great
control of himself and did not once toss his pen in the air or attempt to
. disturb Mr. Durkin’s testimony. l should note, nor did I or the four other
members of counsel present.
• Does not acknowledge testimony that there is no formal requirement for
Newark City Council to agree in advance to the termination of Donald M.
Durkin Contracting. However, it is a general policy of City Manager Carl
Luft to inform and receive support from Council of such important
decisions. Further, Council’s motion of February 2, 2003 to terminate
· Donald M. Durkin Contracting immediately, proceeded in the fashion of
most votes of this body.
o When awarding a contract or approving of a proj ect, Council votes
in favor of or to award a contract to a specific entity. Though
. Council’s direction is certainly important, it may take weeks or
even months to completely fulfill their wishes. They rely on staff
to follow through with the appropriate forms, agreements, etc.
” often associated with the direction. In fact, they are likely not even
aware of most of the steps required to enact their direction. Their
motion does not state that the direction is given pending staff
completion of necessary requirements. The word immediate
simply signals the level of importance and agreement among
Council to move forward with our important water supply project
amid this contractors failure to proceed.
l appreciate your review of this correspondence and allowing me the opportunity to share
these thoughts with you. Unrelated to the motion, although specific to the litigation li
continue to be disappointed by the Surety neglecting its responsibility to protect the City

Case 1:04-cv—00163-Gl\/IS Document 240-2 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 3 of 3
Paul Cottrell
Page 3
May 17, 2006
of Newark from a contractor that refused to perform, failed to follow the direction of the
engineer, would not complete the project at the price it bid, etc. The Surety accepted this
responsibility when it provided an unsecured bond to Donald M. Durkin Contracting.
The Surety’s negligence has been further evidenced by proof that its own internal
representatives had concerns about the co1npany’s ability to complete our job. And the
absence of their bond would have prohibited the hiring of Donald M. Durkin. Newark
_ was never made aware of their concerns.
In addition, I point out that Newark was a good owner to this contractor. We worked to
address concerns, paid on time and to the tune of $6.2 million. i am convinced that
nothing short of an open checkbook would have kept this group on our site working.
If any of my detail presented within is unclear, I respectfully reserve the opportunity to
provide you with additional information. Please call!
Thanks so much! .
Carol S. Houck
Assistant to the City Manager
cc: Carl F. Luft, City Manager
Victoria K. Petrone, Esquire
Roger Akin, City Solicitor

Case 1:04-cv-00163-GMS

Document 240-2

Filed 09/11/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00163-GMS

Document 240-2

Filed 09/11/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00163-GMS

Document 240-2

Filed 09/11/2006

Page 3 of 3