Petition Requesting Relief Discredited By Council

Here is an email written by Council member, Tom Lee. If Council can discredit the petition, they can conveniently disregard it and move ahead without consideration of the many people that worked so hard. Is this the local government we want? The email is a direct copy and paste. Typos and all! The only thing added is the commentary, in red. The names of the residents involved will never be disclosed as they are not public officials.

From: JUDY TOM LEE [mailto:lee_family@q.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008
To: XXXX; tomlee@nol-tec.com
Subject: for the record

Ms. XXXX,

I understand you have taken issue with some things I may or may not have stated in a conversation with my neighbor, XXXX. First, the statements I made did not include any accusation of forgery, though I did state that I believe the petition to be less than valid, as I have first hand knowledge that many of the issues represented by the person or people presenting the petition, were incorrect and/or half truths. If you have heard otherwise, there was a misunderstanding of what I said.

Here is what was said by me, let me explain the circumstances of the conversation as well. I guess it was Monday night, my neighbor XXXX came to my house, fuming that the city was going to "rip out her fence and cut down her tree," which happen to be in the street right of way. I wasn't home, I was at work, so my wife got an earful. Tuesday after work and before the work shop, I spoke with XXXX, my first opportunity. After calming her down, she told me that YOU told her the city intended to force the removal of her fence and tree, because she too opposed the road and that as we were going after you "as punishment for opposing the road project..........." I explained that the city had no intention of "punishing" anyone for anything, nor to my knowledge, were we going to do anything about her fence or tree. To be honest, I didn't realize until THIS blow up that the rock that public works recommended be removed even involved your property, it was just an address. That being said, as a combat decorated veteran of the United States Marine Corps, I don't just talk the talk, I walked the walk. I put myself in harm's way when I was a younger man and I am STILL willing to fight and die if necessary, to defend YOUR ability to exercise YOUR rights. That doesn't mean I have to agree with you or even consider your comments, but I fully support your right to express your views without "punishment" from any form of government. To say I resent the implication that a Council on which I serve would enforce an ordinance on you as punishment for exercising your rights is a not only a gross understatement, I am sickened by it. XXXX also stated she signed the petition opposing the street project, primarily because she was told that the city was going to put a trail in our other neighbor's yard (Brian Way) which she thought was an incredibly bad idea. While that path did appear in the initial scope of the project, she wasn't alone in her opinion. The trail was one of the first things removed from the proposal. XXXX also stated that she agreed the road needed work, suggesting that maybe it could just be patched. I told XXXX, that I was certain some of the other names on that petition are there for "bogus" reasons as well. I explained that I myself was approached to sign the petition, I listened to what was said, then identified myself and corrected just about every piece of misinformation that was stated to get people to sign. If I didn't know better, I'd have signed the petition myself. To be fair, you were not the person that I spent over an hour with explaining the REAL facts, I don't recall her name but she was at last nights meeting, seated against the east wall.

I also stated that I have spoke to other residents directly, that told me that they signed the petition only because of misinformation or feeling pressured to sign, not wanting to be continually confronted by angry supporters. Though most of them said they didn't like the idea of being accessed, most agreed the road needed some type of improvement. The result for ME was to view the petition as not completely valid. That doesn't mean that I believe if people were told the whole truth, they wouldn't be opposed to the project, they'd have only been able to fairly access it.
All of what I said was completely true and more importantly...FAIR. The only apology I'd offer would be to XXXX, who may have misunderstood any comments I made.

I also expressed my opinion that it seems you and some of the other "major players" are not only be willing to create animosity to further your cause, but tend to use that tactic as your primary tool. That is something I find very distasteful.

I have attended each and every meeting, including those we were not required to hold, in a good faith attempt to work TOGETHER at finding the best solution to a common problem. It is clear to me that the good faith was generally one sided.

In the future, if there is something you believe I did or said that you've a problem with, perhaps you could send me an email, I'd be happy to discuss it, perhaps saving everyone a little agrivation.
For the record, the petition in question simply stated that We, Your Constituents Would Like You to Step Back and Reassess the Scope of the Project in These Difficult Economic Times. What is misleading about that? Thou protests too much!

Follow Up
Subject: Follow Up Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008
Dear Tom,
Having been your neighbor for approximately ten years, you know that I like to keep to myself and do not engage in idle neighborhood gossip. That being said, I have to tell you that I find the recent events involving the road expansion petition (and our conversation regarding it) disheartening. Although I appreciated your addressing my concern with the easement issue, I feel that I have now been dragged into something I never wanted to become involved with.

I received a forwarded email written by you from XXXX today. I was utterly shocked by some of the statements you made as they pertain to me. I would like to address a couple of points in which I take issue, starting with:
I at no time came to your house to speak with your wife. I did call her on the telephone and mentioned that my address was listed along with 87 others that were in an easement violation. She said she knew nothing about it and would leave you the message that I called. I disagree that I ever “gave he an earful”, as you state in this email. To say so, tends to discredit any rational inquiry. I did follow up with an email to you that evening but you chose to address me in person while we had visitors the next day. The conversation which ensued was extremely unprofessional and made my guests very uncomfortable. In fact, they left because of it.

During this conversation, at no time did you have to “calm me down” as you also state in this email. I very much resent the implication that I was in some way hysterical, as I believe that I was not. I would have been quite content with your answer on the easement but as you know, the conversation went much further. You knew very well who XXXX and her neighbor were as you said they were somehow involved in creating the list of the 88 easement violations and had been arguing with each other. You also said that my tree and fence did not pose a problem for the road maintenance but one of these ladies had rocks in her yard and that the city would move them if necessary. I at no time stated that XXXX had said the city was going to do anything to me as you misrepresent in this email. We did not discuss the possibility that I was being punished for opposing the road expansion and today is the first time I’ve even heard of it.

Regarding the petition, as I remember it you said that some council members had taken it upon themselves to call the residents on the list. You also stated that about 200 residents claimed they never signed, although their signatures were listed, indicating fraud. I remember this distinctly because I told you not to bother calling us. My husband and I both readily signed the petition in question and our signatures were indeed valid. In this email you sent today, you state that in your opinion the petition was being misrepresented by the individuals canvassing the city. I do not remember this being mentioned at all during conversation and I disagree with your assessment of the people involved.

I do not know what the problem is between you and XXXX but I really resent being dragged into the middle of it. You mention in this email that the only person you would consider apologizing to is me because I might have misunderstood some of your statements. I did not misunderstand what you said about Ms Meath, her neighbor or the petition, Tom. I think it is terribly unprofessional of you to misrepresent our conversation and in doing so, attack another constituent. It is unfortunate that I have been forced to become involved in this nonsense and place the blame squarely on your shoulders. You might want to consider a public apology to XXXX as it does look to others that you are retaliating against her for opposing your road expansion project.

In closing, I would like to mention that it is your responsibility to consider each and every single constituents concern and opinion when making major decisions which will affect their lives. I find your statement to the contrary, quite concerning and intimidating considering your position on the city council.

Going forward, if you wish to contact me, please do so via email as I do not want to be misrepresented by you in the future.
Regards

Centerville Citizen