[Vision2020] Water and Sewer Agreements: second reply from Walter Steed

[Andreas Schou]

 Kit --

It's unethical for a public official to have "private" discussions
about his public duties. In the interest of not believing that Steed
is unethical, I assume the discussion was not "private."

-- ACS

On Feb 11, 2008 5:05 PM, Craine Kit <kcraine at verizon.net> wrote:
> Flame me if you want, but as far as I'm concerned posting private
> emails on any public list is no different than secretly recording a
> private conversation then broadcasting it on the radio. It may be
> legal, but it is not right. Ethics is proper behavior without
> government interference.
>
> Kit Craine
>
>
> On Feb 11, 2008, at 2:06 PM, Chasuk wrote:
>
> > On Feb 11, 2008 1:32 PM, J Ford <privatejf32 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Question to Mr. Steed - why would you purposefully "cut off all
> >> replies" to
> >> questions put to you by the people that elected you?  Are you
> >> saying you
> >> will refuse to respond to the public regarding any issue that
> >> directly/indirectly affects and effects the tax payers - you know,
> >> the ones
> >> that pay for you to be in office and voted you there?  If I mis-
> >> understand
> >> your statement, I totally am open you correcting me on that.
> >
> > I imagine that Mr. Steed quite reasonably makes this decision in order
> > to cut off accusatory and combative posts.  He  is an elected
> > official, yes, but this means that he has to prudently spend his time,
> > and getting embroiled in dialog that sinks as low as it frequently
> > does on unmoderated public forums (not just Vision2020) is imprudent.
> > Consider time a resource that shouldn't be wasted, and you will have
> > your answer.
> >
> >> Question 2 to Mr. Steed - you state "I was attempting to get what
> >> I could
> >> for the City out of a presumed done deal."  IF it were a "done
> >> deal" then
> >> what are you trying to get out of it for the City?  That phrase
> >> indicates
> >> that what is, is and there will be no other additions or changes.
> >> Again, if
> >> I am incorrect in that, please explain how.
> >
> > If the City had remained intransigent, Hawkins still would have had
> > the Mall built, just without the cooperation of the City, hence
> > without any profit for the City, and possibly with the additional cost
> > of ultimately fruitless litigation. Our water would still be sucked
> > away, the Mall would still exist, but we would have no input and our
> > coffers would be emptier.
> >
> >> Question 3 to Mr. Steed - You and Mr Krause were apparently not
> >> very well
> >> informed prior to the vote regarding this vote and yet you voted -
> >> ever hear
> >> about putting the question off until more details can be presented?
> >> Wouldn't that have been the prudent thing to do in order for you
> >> two to make
> >> a better, well-informed decision that affects thousands of people's
> >> taxpayers? Are you in the habit of voting for something solely on
> >> the fact
> >> "heck, they are going to do it anyway"?
> >
> > Question 3 seems exactly the sort of hostile question that justifies
> > Mr. Steed's decision to avoid forums like Vision2020.
> >
> > Chas
> >
> > =======================================================
> >  List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >                http://www.fsr.net
> >           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > =======================================================
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>