[Vision2020] LMT 8/25/04 Moscow Chamber Rumors Denied

[Melynda Huskey]

I think the Tribune did a slightly better job assembling all the facts than 
the Daily News did, but I think there's still some confusion--and some 
unfair generalizations or allegations about us, the members of Vision 2020.

For example, "McMillan blasted Vision 2020 as something that's gone from a 
potentially helpful local forum of ideas to "garbage" spouted by about a 
dozen contributors who give a totally wrong impression of what Moscow is all 
about.  'Vision 2020 was a great idea when it came out,' said McMillan, 'but 
it has just been taken over by a group of, I don't know how to say this ... 
I would call them almost destructive.' "

Is Ms. McMillan a member of Vision 2020? Her name doesn't appear in any 
recognizable form on the list of 516 subscribers maintained by First Step.  
And while she may not like what people have to say on the list (sometimes I 
don't either!), I'd hesitate to qualify it as "garbage."

I'm also disturbed by this statement:

>Kimmell defended his use of Lee in his recent presentation, saying it
>had nothing to do with the promotion of slavery.  "It was not intended
>to be about anything but the leadership skills of a leader," said
>Kimmell.

There was no response from anyone on the Board to the presentation, nor any 
comment from Chamber members not on the Board, which I think was a weakness 
in the article.  And I still think the use of a Confederate general as a 
role model given recent controversies was a peculiar one:  I have yet to 
hear or read an explanation for the choice, which would have been a helpful 
addition to any of the articles.

I was also particularly troubled by this paragraph in Alexis Bachrach's 
article in the Daily News last night:

"Many who have long disagreed with the pastor's views, took their protest 
against Wilson and applied it to the entire church.  Those same community 
members have attacked Kimmell's membership in the church on local Internet 
listservs and other public forums."

This is editorializing unsupported by evidence.  What protest?  How, and by 
whom, was a protest applied to the entire church?  And who are these "many" 
community members?  As someone who *has* commented here on what I see as 
conflict of interest, poor judgement, and preferential treatment of church 
members in Paul Kimmell's work as a commissioner and as the Director of the 
Chamber, I strongly object to the notion that I am protesting an entire 
church, or attacking someone's church membership.  That's just not accurate 
at all.  My concerns are very focused on a particular person's actions in 
his role as a public figure.  His church membership is a part of that 
concern *only* insofar as it appears to be implicated in his public role.

Melynda Huskey