[Vision2020] architect

[cjs]

Mike,

Thanks for confirming Hummel came on board about 4 years ago and their statements are true. It appears that Keely's statements are untrue. Maybe she ought to be brought up to speed.

You also state Hummel is working for gratis. Gratis in my book means zero. Not one check. Does your gratis mean the same? So - can I ask the district to see their check ledger from 1986 to the present? So you think all those drawings and trips here from Boise are free?

Anyways........... who hired or in other words where did Hummel come from? Who initially brought them to the table? There has to be some sort of document or contract (verbal or not) between Hummel and the school district. Within the four years they have been working they have to have some form of remuneration.

Phil


-----Original message-----
From: "Michael Curley" curley at turbonet.com
Date: Sun,  8 May 2005 14:09:05 -0700
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] architect

> Phil:
> The FPC has existed in one form or another (in other words, there
> may have been a slightly different name) for 15 years or so.  Hummel
> wasn't hired two years before that.  And for that matter, Hummel 
> wasn't "hired" in the sense that they received any direct payment 
> from the district when they first signed on to evaluate the project.  
> They did much, if not all, of their work gratis with the hope of 
> being named the architect for the project if it were approved.  As I 
> said before, they may have been paid some expenses over time.  You 
> could review the monthly check records of the District--which are 
> regularly presented at the Board meeting in front of the public and 
> which you can also obtain by public records request.
> 
> In any event, Strauber misspoke if he said he'd been there since two 
> years before the FPC, or you misunderstood him.  That just isn't 
> correct information.  
> 
> (Source for this information:  I was on the committee at the time 
> Hummel first came into the picture--my best recollection being 2000 
> or 2001.)
> Mike
> 
> On 4 May 2005 at 18:29, Shelly wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> 
>