1) After reading what was printed in a supposedly factual statement, I
interpreted what the answer said as being from the School Board. As a
member of teh Board, I knew that we never discussed either incorporating a
pool into one of our buildings or bussing 3000 students. As a Board member
I know that our student population isn't even close to 3000.
2) Prior to writing my comments, I contacted the Board's representative
on the committee who indicated to me that the comments I was objecting to
were never discussed. Karen also indicated to me that these comments were
generated by one committe member and the committee never discussed these
issues either.
3) This indicates to me the committee never saw the question and answer
sheet prior to its being presented at a public meeting. Karen, as a
representative of the Board, surely would have objected to the language if
she had been given an opportunity to do so. That she was denied this
chance indicates to me that this committee spent tax dollars pursueing a
private agenda and not fulfilling the original charge given it by the
council.
4) I now feel the city attorney should pursue an investigation of the
committee's actions. I question the spending of tax dollars and the
production of a clearly limited and biased presentation. At issue here is
not outdoor vs indoor pool. At issue here is the actions of some members
of the committee.
John Danahy
jdanahy@turbonet.com