Closed sessions on bankruptcy settlement continue in Mammoth

After Measure U Committee concerns and lots of public comment, the Council voted unanimously for a loan from Measure U.Last week, private reports in Mammoth Lakes indicated there might have been some news on the settlement of the $43 million debt to MLLA. There wasn’t. Assistant Town Manager Marianna Marysheva-Martinez had invited us to contact her Friday to check on any developments. We did, but she had nothing to report. Again, this week, the Town Council has scheduled two closed sessions on the debt issue and bankruptcy in general.

At 5:30pm Tuesday, the Town Council scheduled a special meeting compromised only of a closed session on town bankruptcy proceedings. On Wednesday, the Council has scheduled a regular meeting with a 4pm closed session on bankruptcy issues. The agenda notes a teleconference location as a condo in Mexico. Town Clerk Jamie Gray explained that Councilman Michael Raimondo wanted to be able to call in and vote on the closed session item.

It is still an unknown when or if the Town will conclude a settlement deal with MLLA and Terry Ballas. Mammoth officials had announced that a settlement was reached but must go through documentation and detailing. Assistant Town Manager Martinez had said that she hoped to have some news by the Wednesday night Town Council meeting. The public now waits to find out how much the Town may have settled for and the terms of payment.

Also on Wednesday’s agenda – a 5pm workshop with the Recreation Commission and Measure U Application Committee on funding priorities for tax Measures R and U, a report from the Sierra Business Council on economic possibilities in Inyo and Mono, Measure R fall funding applications, and some planning issues.


, , , ,

16 Responses to Closed sessions on bankruptcy settlement continue in Mammoth

  1. taxifornia September 17, 2012 at 1:58 pm #

    Why even bother on telling the Sheeple about ANOTHER closed session??
    In the end they will do what they want.

    Govt Gone Wild

  2. S. Dogood September 17, 2012 at 7:19 pm #

    Sep 5, (12 days ago) after council’s quiet request for input from the public about the settlement made in CLOSED SESSION that no details were available to question, we wrote and delivered this letter that was censored by management and never delivered to council and staff.

    Bennett, we know they read your posts and request you include this for them and the public to read now.

    to jgray

    We can not attend the Sept 12, 2012 meeting and want this letter read and entered into public record.

    Dear Members of the Mammoth Lakes Town Council and Mammoth Town Managers,

    We are the “Mammoth Greater Fools”. We are home owners and business owners. We represent the silent majority that you seldom listen to.

    The bankruptcy laws are written “a fresh start for an honest debtor”. When you (the council) decided to drag us through bankruptcy the premise was always as an “honest debtor”. If you settle now in the 11th hour you condemn yourselves to be branded as dishonest. Where is the integrity in this decision?

    Let the court system take care of US. You have spent millions of dollars chasing this truth. If you change horse mid-stream you have lied to US. If the system fails, we take our punishment and pay our debt. If you fail as council, you doom US and yourself to a terrible future. You can never be re-elected if you make this decision.

    We watched our neighbor’s loose business after business, house after house. Pay attention to the number of repossessions in the paper every week.Your ridiculous actions plummet the property and business values of our community one more time.

    Your (councils) past actions got us here. Your present actions keep us here. If you settle now you depreciate our town and encumber US, “THE PEOPLE of MAMMOTH” with your mistakes.


    Mammoth Business Council members,
    Polly Baker, Alice Addertongue, Caelia Shortface, S. Dogood

    • Bemused September 18, 2012 at 8:31 am #

      What many appear not to understand, is that municipal bankruptcy is unlike a “no-asset” personal bankruptcy. The debt is not simply discharged in a muni bankruptcy, it is structured/restructured to be paid over time.

      In this case; because of the town’s perceived (and largely true) bad-faith dealings and abuse of the legal system, experts in the ways of the U.S. bankruptcy court generally feel that we would be dealt with rather harshly by them in a BK scenario.

      My point being; understand that there is/was no way out of this debt without paying it off in one form or another…

      • Bemused September 18, 2012 at 10:35 am #

        Once again; you gotta love the people who “thumbs-down” factual statements. Congratulations…you are the reason the civilized world laughs at our country. Morons.

        • Trouble September 18, 2012 at 8:29 pm #

          Bemused- did you mean Morons or Mormon candidates?

        • taxifornia September 19, 2012 at 12:12 pm #

          they are from the sheep or the public Servants

        • Ed Cesnalis September 19, 2012 at 2:46 pm #


          You got your facts all wrong. The town or debtor can submit a plan where creditors would be paid a portion of what they are owed. The court has limited powers in Chapter 9 due to the 10th amendment.

          • Bemused September 19, 2012 at 7:26 pm #

            I’m well aware of the “facts”…I’ve represented creditors in BK proceedings many times. Yes, the potential for debt reduction exists. However, because of the bad-faith nature of the dealings/proceedings from which this debt results, and the lack of systemic municipal insolvency involved, it is likely that we would be stuck with the lion’s share in a BK scenario…probably very much along the lines of what the settlement figure will/would be.

            My general point is that it seems clear that the MBC members behind this letter are under the mistaken understanding the bankruptcy offers a means to wholly discharge this debt, as is generally the case in a chapter 7 personal bankruptcy. It does not…

    • Ken Warner September 18, 2012 at 9:58 am #

      10 years too late!

    • Realist September 18, 2012 at 2:33 pm #

      Right on Ms. Dogood!
      You have nailed the disconnect between local Mammoth government and the rest of US right on the head. Expect 5 dislikes, the council’s meager showing, disregarding the 400% opposition for their irresponsible, closed (minded) sessions and highly distorted views.

  3. a flaw in the system September 18, 2012 at 5:24 am #

    Attorneys on both sides are having a field day with this.
    Everytime one files a counter-motion to counter the counter-motion they bill their respective parties tons of $$$ in the process and keep gettting richer and richer and …
    Attorneys can play this game forever.
    And nobody can stop them.
    Absolutely disgusting.

    • upthecreek September 18, 2012 at 12:24 pm #

      open up the phone book.. How many attorneys are in the eastern sierra?

      I Rest my case

    • Mark September 18, 2012 at 2:15 pm #

      Yes the attorneys are making lots of money. However the clown council is to blame.

      It’s funny how some thought it was over a few weeks ago, when in reality the pain of paying the debt hasn’t even started.

      TOML is more fun to watch then Comedy Central. Complete idiots in action!

  4. power politics September 18, 2012 at 6:45 pm #

    Elected officials.
    One is an attorney.
    One has been around for far too long.
    But they keep getting elected.
    One is a developer and also the mayor.
    All that power.
    And all because they got more votes than the other guy.
    What’s wrong with this picture?

  5. We the People September 19, 2012 at 8:03 am #

    Two have been calling the shots for years (and still keep getting voted in) and now a developer at the head.
    Demand a recall and vote somebody else in … for a change.

  6. Fool me once! September 19, 2012 at 3:38 pm #

    “Assistant Town Manager Marianna Marysheva-Martinez had invited us to contact her Friday to check on any developments. We did, but she had nothing to report”.

    “The agenda notes a teleconference location as a condo in Mexico. Town Clerk Jamie Gray explained that Councilman Michael Raimondo wanted to be able to call in and vote on the closed session item”.

    If there is nothing to report, how do we know there will be a vote on Wednesday?

    More Mammoth Town Council manipulation of the truth! It ‘s all over except for the Assistant Town Manager Marianna Marysheva-Martinez leaving town laughing all the way to the bank. The public has had no input on the settlement details because of the secrecy of the proceedings. Yet we’ll be forced to deal with the cuts in services mandated by the payment$ of the settlement for years to come.

    Every town council vote in the affirmative supporting this incompetence, should be targeted for re-call, no exceptions!


Leave a Reply

KSRW · 1280 N. Main St. Suite J · Bishop, CA 93514 · 760-873-5329
Positive Projections Web Design