Updating - sleazeball tactics
Wanda Boone of Durham TRY, who claimed to speak for Partners Against Crime at Fairway's press conference yesterday, has just sent out an email to the various PAC's.
A couple of questions remain. Wanda claims that "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." We ask, when has the City-Wide PAC, a group which consists of the facilitators of the various district PACs, ever been asked to take a position on an issue like this? What information was available to the members of that group before they made their decision? So far as we know, only a representative of Fairway addressed the group? Were any other parties invited to present their viewpoints?
Good Afternoon Everyone,
Four very quick points:
1. Have have not been contacted by nor have I made statements to the media regarding anything that has been in print.
2. TRY received donated billboard space in late 2007 after my approaching Fairway with the request. Fairway did not at any time offer free billboard space to TRY. As you see this transaction occurred prior to any recent electronic billboard discussions.
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.
4. I appreciate and respect the opinions of all those who wish to voice them. TRY's mission continues to be to prevent the devastating effects of substance abuse and underage drinking. Our billboard has been a successful tool in reaching that goal which is separate and apart from the electronic billboard discussion.
Best Regards,
Wanda
Wanda Boone
A couple of questions remain. Wanda claims that "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." We ask, when has the City-Wide PAC, a group which consists of the facilitators of the various district PACs, ever been asked to take a position on an issue like this? What information was available to the members of that group before they made their decision? So far as we know, only a representative of Fairway addressed the group? Were any other parties invited to present their viewpoints?
Labels: billboards, Durham, local politics
Since 1949, Durhamites have slept soundly, secure in the knowledge that, in our town, erection can be depended upon. Now, thanks to the power of the internets, we can spread that security all over the world.
5 Comments:
And, to clarify Ms. Boone's use of the words "a majority"...
City-wide PAC's majority that day was 3 people. Out of approximately 220,000 city residents.
By
Rob Gillespie, at 2:16 PM
Also, I wonder how Mrs. Boone will react to the fact that one of the people voting did not represent the PAC they said they did.
Whoops!
By
Natalie, at 3:24 PM
Natalie --
Who was that?
By
Unknown, at 3:33 PM
@MB-
Copied from BCR:
Marion Lamberth does not represent PAC5, and I am insulted to learn that she presented herself as such at this meeting. The co-facilitators of PAC5 are myself and Ms. Alice Cheek. Ms. Lamberth has not attended a PAC5 meeting in the two plus years that I have been co-facilitator. She was a former co-facilitator of PAC5, incorrectly presented herself as representing PAC5 on the CCIP Advisory Board, and now I learn she is casting votes when a) she is not authorized to cast such votes; and b) she has no possible understanding of the desires of the PAC since she does not even attend our meetings.
I am dumbfounded.
PAC5 did discuss the billboard ban at one of our monthly meetings, and all in attendance supported the existing ban. Ms. Cheek, my co-facilitator, attends the City-Wide PAC meetings, and was either late or absent for the meeting in question.
Posted by: Scott harmon | June 24, 2010 at 02:43 PM
By
Rob Gillespie, at 3:37 PM
Think they will take back their endorsement?
Maybe this will FINALLY straighten up the PACs so that they keep their focus on crime.
By
Natalie, at 3:43 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home