Garrett States<br><br>"but I think<br>it's funny that that aspect has created so much<br>conversation, rather than the fact that our council<br>people, for the most part, don't answer our emails at<br>all."<br>
<br>I say,<br><br>I have contacted the current council regarding my questions and concerns related to this issue. I received responses from 4 members. I am not inclined to believe that your statement is true.<br><br>Angie <br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Feb 12, 2008 8:57 PM, Garrett Clevenger <<a href="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net">garrettmc@verizon.net</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Perhaps I could have handled this sending of our<br>councilman's email to v2020 differently, but I think<br>it's funny that that aspect has created so much<br>conversation, rather than the fact that our council<br>
people, for the most part, don't answer our emails at<br>all.<br><br>I appreciate that Walter Steed had the respect to<br>reply to this important topic. He is the only one.<br>It's the other council members who support the Greater<br>
Moscow Giveaway, and then ignore our questions, who<br>trouble me.<br><br>The fact is, if we are unable to share with each other<br>their responses, how would we ever hold them<br>accountable? What would prevent them from sending<br>
people different answer, taylored to what they think<br>the recipient wants to hear?<br><br>If council people are uncomfortable responding to<br>their constituents, then they shouldn't be serving as<br>elected officials. Part of their job is to<br>
communicate with us about issues we care about. Their<br>lack of response leads me to believe they have no<br>reasonable defense for their actions.<br><br>Those who do respond should be able to stand behind<br>their replies, and not feel hesitant to have their<br>
responses made public.<br><br>If Walter is mad at me for making public his reply,<br>that is up to him. Perhaps he'll never reply to me<br>again. All that would do is make me lose respect for<br>him for desiring to maintain some sort of<br>
confidentiallity with a constituent who in the end is<br>just trying to figure what they are doing, why they<br>are doing it and to encourage dialog amongst us all so<br>that we can come to a reasonable understanding.<br>
<br>Sincerely,<br><font color="#888888"><br>Garrett<br></font><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">--- Warren Hayman <<a href="mailto:whayman@roadrunner.com">whayman@roadrunner.com</a>> wrote:<br><br>> I believe that simple prior clearance or even notice<br>
> with Mr. Steed (indicating the intent of subsequent<br>> public posting etc) would have eradicated all<br>> problems one way or the other.<br>><br>> Warren Hayman<br>><br>> ----- Original Message -----<br>
> From: Ted Moffett<br>> To: Chasuk<br>> Cc: Vision 2020 ; Garrett Clevenger<br>> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 5:56 PM<br>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Water and Sewer<br>> Agreements: second reply fromWalter Steed<br>
><br>><br>> On Feb 12, 2008 5:27 PM, Chasuk <<a href="mailto:chasuk@gmail.com">chasuk@gmail.com</a>><br>> wrote:<br>><br>> On Feb 12, 2008 5:20 PM, Ted Moffett<br>> <<a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">starbliss@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> \<br>> > This indicates clearly that Mr. Steed knew<br>> Garrett might post his response<br>> > to the list, and asked him not to. But I<br>> disagree with Mr. Steeds decision,<br>> > and the obvious avoidance of Vision2020 by<br>
> many public officials, to refuse<br>> > to engage in dialog on Vision2020.<br>><br>><br>> I took it to mean that he knew that Garrett was<br>> posting his emails to<br>> Vision2020, and wished for Garrett to make clear<br>
> that this<br>> second-hand participation was not an invitation<br>> to contact him<br>> directly. Garrett complied by publishing that<br>> excerpt.<br>><br>><br>><br>> I understand this interpretation.<br>
><br>> But if Mr. Steed is open to all e-mails from<br>> private individuals, as he wrote below,<br>><br>> "I try to respond promptly at all e-mails sent<br>> directly to me by individuals,,,"<br>
><br>> this might contradict the statement he does not<br>> want Garrett to "incite Vision2020 to start sending<br>> everything to me..." as he also wrote.<br>><br>> So is Mr. Steed open to anyone subscribed to<br>
> Vision2020 contacting him privately? Or was he<br>> saying he did not want a flood of private e-mails<br>> from Vision2020 subscribers?<br>><br>> For Garrett to post his responses to the list<br>> certainly might invite many private and/or public<br>
> responses, no matter who wishes what.<br>><br>> Ted Moffett<br>><br>><br>><br>------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>=======================================================<br>
> List services made available by First Step<br>> Internet,<br>> serving the communities of the Palouse since<br>> 1994.<br>> <a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
><br>> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>><br>=======================================================<br><br>=======================================================<br>
List services made available by First Step Internet,<br> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br> <a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
=======================================================<br></div></div></blockquote></div><br>