[Vision2020] Hawkins Mall and Moscow

[Tom Hansen]

By the mere fact that the topic was discussed, and an agreement reached, 
IN SECRECY give it an odious characteristic of suspicion.

These are elected officials, receiving pay from city revenues, making 
decisions concerning the city of Moscow and its residents.  The people 
have a right to know.

How can the people of Moscow have any faith or confidence in a city 
council and mayor that conducts business in privacy outside of a 
legitimate executive session?

To answer your question, Mr. Crabtree . . . Yes, they should have refused 
to proceed after it was determined that a signed statement of non-
disclosure was a prerequisite to the proceedings.

We, the people of Moscow, elected them onto the council.  They MOST 
CERTAINLY owe us their candor and honesty.  Anything short of that is 
disloyal.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

> I admit that I am less than wildly enthusiastic about the perceived lack 
of 
> transparency but I am satisfied with the outcome. Some discussions 
between 
> public and private entities must, by necessity, be behind closed doors. 
Now 
> that I've answered your question how about returning the favor. What is 
it 
> that you imagine happened of a nefarious nature that makes the closed 
> meeting suspect? When closed executive sessions can and can not occur is 
> governed by Idaho code. Is it your contention that the discussions were 
> illegal? Just because Hawkins asked for a confidentiality agreement, 
should 
> our council have refused to discuss matters of vital regional interest 
with 
> them? Would refusing to discuss these matters have been in the best 
interest 
> of the city and its residents?
> 
> g 



---------------------------------------------
This message was sent by First Step Internet.
           http://www.fsr.com/