Where did it go?
The January 17 council meeting will be best remembered for FUC's remarkable decision to table the CEDC abolishment vote in the face of certain defeat. But there was a small incident that occurred much later in the meeting that was also worth noting. It happened during council correspondence, long after the most of the audience had left.
At the end of her correspondence summary, Denise Duda mentioned three different letters from Elizabeth Prata. The council's ensuing discussion is confusing, but it appears to come down to this: Prata requested that one of her previous letters to council be withdrawn and replaced by a new letter, subject(s) unknown (but possibly related to Prata's comments about Lynn Olson in Nathan's post directly below). Duda also mentioned a letter Prata sent to council dated Dec. 31 that was critical of CEDC. The withdrawn letter naturally piqued my curiosity, so I asked Denise to send me a copy, which clearly belongs in the public record despite Prata's withdrawl request. Denise informed me that Mitch had the letter, and I could view it at town hall. So I troop down there, and Mitch tells me only thing he had is Prata's CEDC letter, not the withdrawn letter, which he has never seen.
I paid my 50 cents -- there's a new council policy that requires anyone not named Prata to cough up $.25/page for FOA documents -- and got a copy of Prata's Dec. 31 CEDC letter. I informed Denise of this situation and am awaiting her reply.
Anyway, here's a snippet from Prata's 12/31/05 CEDC letter, quite remarkable on its own merits. My bold text added for emphasis:
At the end of her correspondence summary, Denise Duda mentioned three different letters from Elizabeth Prata. The council's ensuing discussion is confusing, but it appears to come down to this: Prata requested that one of her previous letters to council be withdrawn and replaced by a new letter, subject(s) unknown (but possibly related to Prata's comments about Lynn Olson in Nathan's post directly below). Duda also mentioned a letter Prata sent to council dated Dec. 31 that was critical of CEDC. The withdrawn letter naturally piqued my curiosity, so I asked Denise to send me a copy, which clearly belongs in the public record despite Prata's withdrawl request. Denise informed me that Mitch had the letter, and I could view it at town hall. So I troop down there, and Mitch tells me only thing he had is Prata's CEDC letter, not the withdrawn letter, which he has never seen.
I paid my 50 cents -- there's a new council policy that requires anyone not named Prata to cough up $.25/page for FOA documents -- and got a copy of Prata's Dec. 31 CEDC letter. I informed Denise of this situation and am awaiting her reply.
Anyway, here's a snippet from Prata's 12/31/05 CEDC letter, quite remarkable on its own merits. My bold text added for emphasis:
...I applaud the Council's wish to delve into what is working within the Town and what is not. Though the members are volunteers, the Council's hallmark is accountability, and I am highly interested to see that the CEDC members are accountable for their statements and actions. At the very least, abolishing a negative and falled committee will make room for something good to come in.Full text on document sidebar at right or here.
My words are strong, and my opinion perhaps unwelcome, though not surprising since I have editorialized in this vein on and off over trme. I am emphatic about appropriate positive work within the town, and raising the standards of expectations and outcomes. Gray has suffered for too long with a negative self-image, and the CEDC's promotion of that negative self-image should stop.
<< Home