More Soviet-style journalism

Julie just got another note from Prata -- a beautiful example of Soviet-era party journalism in which guilt is prejudged and the only things left to discuss are recanting and penance. Email subject is "comment sought for article"; note that it is cc'd to council politburo. Wonder if they do that at the Washington Post?

You read this thing and you can almost feel Liz's grip on reality slipping:

From: The Monument Newspaper [mailto:monumentnewspaper@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 5:14 PM
To: Julie@Softedconsult.com
Cc: 'John Welch'; 'Skip Crane'; 'Denise Duda'; 'Gary Foster'; 'Andy Upham'; [Entire CEDC, email addresses deleted]
Subject: comment sought for article

Hi Julie,

I am working on an article regarding the CEDC and the Council. As CEDC Chair I ask for your responses to the following for publication. Though if any other member has an opinion or would like to share information I would welcome it.

At Tuesday’s meeting, the Council indicated that they are dissatisfied with both CEDC’s attitude and CEDC's lack of work product. It is true that the CEDC has regularly indicated derision of the Council in word and deed since June. And the challenging and combative attitude displayed by members on Tuesday (one of your members had to be gaveled down and the meeting recessed) also tends to support Council’s concern about CEDC’s negativity. If Council decides not to abolish your committee, do you feel you can encourage your members to have a positive working relationship with Council? If so, how?

Two of your members stated flatly that the situation is not fixable. (Ralph, Jeanne). Do you agree with them?

If you feel the Council is in error in observing that CEDC has been unproductive, what can you point me to that shows productivity? I would appreciate it.

When CEDC asked to meet with Council and Council subsequently invited you to a meeting, why did you refuse?

When Council responded to your request for a task by asking you to look into the regulatory quagmire, and you stated flatly at the November meeting that you “have no intention of investigating the Planning Board in any way, shape, or form” was that because a member of the CEDC is on the Planning Board? Or is it because you did not want to complete the task?

Do you agree or disagree that citizen Lynn Olson’s comments at an earlier CEDC meeting were out of order? If they were out of order, why did you not indicate so to Ms Olson at the time?

Do you have further comment that you would like readers of The Monument Newspaper to know about the situation? I welcome your thoughts.

Thank you kindly,

Elizabeth