Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Fw: response to "for the record" <br /> <br />Sqbject: Fw: response to "for the record" <br />From: "Julie Rieman" <allabout-walls@comcast.net> <br />Date: Wed, 23 Ju12008 00:26:13 -0500 <br />To: <capria@comcast.net> <br /> <br />This is July 23rd and Melody has not yet received a response. At the very least. it should be addressed. <br />Tom has behaved in an extremely unprofessional manner. This needs to be addressed and I request some <br />time during the next council meeting to address this. <br />Thank You, <br />Julie Rieman <br />----- Original Message ---- <br />From: Melody Meath <br />To: Tom Lee <br />Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 1 :38 PM <br />Subject: response to "for the record" <br /> <br />Council Member Lee, <br /> <br />First off, Julie Rieman (and her guests that you made so uncomfortable they left) seem to remember a very <br />different conversation than you do and since Julie has nothing to gain or any reason to lie, I can only come to one <br />conclusion. <br /> <br />If you felt the petition was "less than valid" (Do you even know what the petition said?) or had issues with the <br />person presenting the petition to you, as a council member representing me and the City, that opinion should have <br />been kept to yourself or you should have contacted me directly. I would've have been happy to debate the issue with <br />you. I understand you are also a taxpayer and as such have a right to your own opinion, but as a council member and <br />politician you also have an obligation and a duty to conduct yourself in a certain manner. When you talk about issues <br />conceming the City outside of council chambers you are still representing your constituents and should act <br />accordingly. For me to have to say that to you, is very distasteful to me. I'm a little confused as to what <br />"misinformation" you are referring to. If you are referring to the "Dear Fellow Centerville Residents" sheet that has <br />been going around that states the councils spending history recently, I assure you that every point on that sheet is <br />fact and was obtained from either The Citizen or from council action and was verified. If you want to defend the <br />councils actions or justify them in any way that is fine. Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but to say that it is <br />misinformation is just plain not true unless you can prove that it is. <br /> <br />I have never created any animosity to further my cause on this issue or any issue and I am offended by such <br />an accusation. Alii have done from the very beginning was simply inform people of the past history of the council and <br />what the future was to bring. The people that walked the petition and the people that have been vocal about it had <br />their own passions about the project and used their interpretation of the information they gathered to inform residents <br />what the City was planning on doing. >From what I have gathered during this whole process is that a lot of people <br />where not even aware of the scope of the project until they got a knock on their door. I don't know who you are <br />referring to when you say you know many people that were in favor of this project but it means nothing unless you <br />can back it up. When people agree that their road needs work done that does not mean they are in favor of a 7.8 <br />million dollar project. Maybe you should start your own petition of people in favor of the 7.8 million dollar project then <br />maybe it would mean something. As of now, it is just talk. <br /> <br />The council has sat up there for a long time with no opposition, but you must remember when they speak out <br />it is because they oppose how you are representing them and it is your duty and obligation to listen to them and not <br />make decisions based on your own personal beliefs and agendas. I understand this project has been on the books <br />since 2003. Well it was a different time then. The economy was good and people put their faith and trust into their <br />elected officials to do what was best for them and the City. Times have changed since this project first took form and <br />people started paying attention because they felt the project needed to change along with the economy. This called <br />for a change in the scope of the project and so the petition began. You stated in your email, Julie "signed the petition <br />opposing the street project". This is NOT what the petition said. It simply stated that we, your constituents would <br />like you to step back and reassess the scope of the project in these difficult economic times. Incidentally, <br />what part of that is "less than valid"? Please explain. By you stating that it says otherwise just proves the point that <br />you do not listen to us. What does that mean "the good faith was one sided"? Are you saying that when your <br />constituents speak up it means nothing? When they oppose you that doesn't mean they are wrong. It means they do <br />not agree with how you are representing them. Did you forget that you work for us? As you state, you don't have to <br /> <br />10f2 <br /> <br />8/13/20082:16 PM <br />