Updating again - sleazeball tactics
Dear Fellow Citizens,
Mistake number 1.
I naively carried a message regarding the above as requested by the Facilitator of City-Wide PAC about a very important vote that took place several months ago.
Although information was provided to PAC 1 via Melvin Whitley about the important safety features of electronic billboards, it is obvious that PAC 1 might not have received all of the information at the disposal of others. It is also obvious that there are still silos between us as PAC members. I suggest that a larger conversation should have taken place during City-wide PAC which would have been a great use of our time.
To make sure that this happens, I would like to invite members of PAC 2 as well as Mike Woodard to attend our next PAC 1 meeting to present the information that you have.
My sincere apologies for any misunderstanding, confusion or seeming misrepresentation. It was unintential on my part. I have spent 39 years in Durham and a lifetime of building a trusted reputation in the community that I have no desire to see end on this issue.
I hope that both my apology and invitation are accepted.
Now, let's go back to Ms. Boone's earlier email and look at this quote:
3. The request for me to speak came via Harold Chestnut, City-wide PAC to voice the result of City-wide PAC's vote (period) in favor of the electronic billboard "for the safety of our Durham Community". The majority of PAC representatives voted yes during the City-wide PAC meeting in question and the process was conducted fairly, as overseen by Harold. I carried the message.
Jumping ahead, here's an email from the PAC 2 list today, addressed to PAC 2 co-facilitator Bill Anderson:
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think this is kind of important: as far as I've heard, PAC2 -- the organization that meets monthly at the DPS Training Center -- has not formally voted on the issue.
In the future, if a similar situation were to arise at the Citywide PAC meeting, I would suggest making a motion to table the question until the emissaries from each of the five PAC groups have received instructions from their respective memberships.
And Bill's response:
There's nothing overly "fine" about your important point. I did try to table it in that way, and every other way I could think of at the time.
The attorney representing Fairway said there wasn't enough time, so the Chair agreed to vote on it that evening. My objections barely slowed it down ten minutes.
So, enquiring minds want to know, what was so important about this vote, conducted, according to Wanda Boone "several months ago," that City Wide PAC Chair Harold Chestnut had to have it voted on that night, without allowing for alternative viewpoints to be presented, without allowing for the facilitators to consult with their respective groups to determine how they wished their organization to vote, and without questioning the credentials to vote of one of the 3 facilitators who voted in favor of the resolution, and who, according to the current facilitator of PAC 5, was not authorized to represent that group, and voted against that groups expressed preferences?
I don't know anything about Mr. Chestnut; don't think i've ever met him. But this information seems to indicate that he's at the center of this ill-advised decision to jump into bed with Fairway Outdoor Advertising. Would love to hear his take on this situation.