Cortney
----------------------------------------
Dan,
Thx for your reply. You make some valid points, and I'll make some adjustments going forward. Please see my detailed responses below in CAPS.
Thanks,
Cortney
Mariemont Village Council
513-271-4513
scheeser.blogspot.com
Cortney,
When you sent your original e-mail to Joanee and Sue and asked them to print out the documents for the Public Works and Services Committee meeting on March 19th, they naturally gave me a copy. THIS IS OK.
As you know, once the office receives any document, it becomes an item of public record, and must be made available to anyone who asks to see that particular document or any document related to a specific topic. THIS IS OK.
That is exactly what happened in this case. After finding out that the Public Works committee was meeting to discuss the sidewalks on Albert Place, a property-owner on that street came into the office and asked for any details I might have on the issue. It was then that I showed your letter to this Albert Place citizen. By law, that is what I was required to do. I asked her if she received a copy of your memo and she said she had not, so we gave her a copy, unaware that it was supposed to be a secret of any kind. THERE WAS NO SECRET, AND THIS KIND OF RHETORIC PROVES MY POINT THAT WE'RE ROWING IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS.
If you only meant that letter to be a “talking point” at the meeting, you should have identified it as a draft. The letter appeared to be ready to be distributed to Albert Place residents. I was surprised by that, because, if you will recall, when you first suggested pulling up the bricks and replacing them with concrete, AS STATED IN LAST WEEK'S MEETING, WE NEVER DISCUSSED PULLING UP SIDEWALKS, ONLY UNDERSTANDING WHAT OPTIONS WERE AVAILABLE TO US FROM A BUDGET PERSPECTIVE. THIS CHARACTERIZATION IS AN EXAMPLE OF NOT ROWING IN THE SAME DIRECTION.
Mariemont Village Council
513-271-4513
scheeser.blogspot.com
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Dan Policastro <mayordan1@gmail.com>
To: Cortney Scheeser <cscheeser@yahoo.com>
Cc: Jeff Andrews; Denise ; Andy Black ; Dennis Wolter ; Joe Miller ; Chris Ertel ; "joanee@mariemont.org" ; Sue Singleton <ssingleton@mariemont.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2012 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: docs for tonights meeting - can you print out?
From: Dan Policastro <mayordan1@gmail.com>
To: Cortney Scheeser <cscheeser@yahoo.com>
Cc: Jeff Andrews
Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2012 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: docs for tonights meeting - can you print out?
Cortney,
When you sent your original e-mail to Joanee and Sue and asked them to print out the documents for the Public Works and Services Committee meeting on March 19th, they naturally gave me a copy. THIS IS OK.
As you know, once the office receives any document, it becomes an item of public record, and must be made available to anyone who asks to see that particular document or any document related to a specific topic. THIS IS OK.
That is exactly what happened in this case. After finding out that the Public Works committee was meeting to discuss the sidewalks on Albert Place, a property-owner on that street came into the office and asked for any details I might have on the issue. It was then that I showed your letter to this Albert Place citizen. By law, that is what I was required to do. I asked her if she received a copy of your memo and she said she had not, so we gave her a copy, unaware that it was supposed to be a secret of any kind. THERE WAS NO SECRET, AND THIS KIND OF RHETORIC PROVES MY POINT THAT WE'RE ROWING IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS.
If you only meant that letter to be a “talking point” at the meeting, you should have identified it as a draft. The letter appeared to be ready to be distributed to Albert Place residents. I was surprised by that, because, if you will recall, when you first suggested pulling up the bricks and replacing them with concrete, AS STATED IN LAST WEEK'S MEETING, WE NEVER DISCUSSED PULLING UP SIDEWALKS, ONLY UNDERSTANDING WHAT OPTIONS WERE AVAILABLE TO US FROM A BUDGET PERSPECTIVE. THIS CHARACTERIZATION IS AN EXAMPLE OF NOT ROWING IN THE SAME DIRECTION.
I told you the Public Works and Services Committee did not have the authority to make that decision. WHEN WAS THIS COMMUNICATED? UNLESS YOU'RE REFERRING TO LAST WEEK'S MEETING, WE HAVE NOT PREVIOUSLY SPOKEN ABOUT THIS PROJECT. AGAIN, ROWING IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION.
That kind of drastic change in an historic district can only be approved by ARB. DOES ARB WEIGH IN ON PUBLIC PROPERTY IN AN HISTORIC DISTRICT? DO WE NEED THEIR APPROVAL TO REPLACE TREES? TO REPAVE STREETS? TO RESET CURBS? THIS IS A QUESTION FOR ME.
Not only is Albert Place part of our historic district, it is a street named after Mary Emery’s son and any changes to it must honor our founder’s design. AGAIN WE HAVE/HAD NO INTENTION OF CONCRETE REPLACEMENT. I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO ATTEND OUR MEETINGS TO HEAR FIRST HAND WHAT IS DISCUSSED, AS WELL AS THE TENOR OF THE DISCUSSION.
The copy of Ed McTigue’s letter that all of Council received spelled out very clearly that it is the responsibility of the Village to repair or replace sidewalks damaged by the roots of trees the Village has planted. Furthermore, the current condition of the sidewalks creates a tripping hazard and the safety of our citizens should always be our first priority. That is one point on which I will not
compromise or delay taking action. No elected official should. SAFETY IS VERY IMPORTANT AND STREETS/SIDEWALKS NEEDING REPAIR MUST BE ADDRESSED. ON THIS WE AGREE. HOWEVER, I CONTINUE TO RECEIVE MIXED MESSAGES ABOUT RESPONSIBILITY FOR UPKEEP, AND I THINK IT'S WORTH ASKING QUESTIONS WHEN THE VILLAGE HAPPILY SPENDS MONEY ON SIDEWALKS THAT HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN SAVED FOR MORE ROAD & CURB IMPROVEMENTS. FURTHER, THE VILLAGE OPERATED VERY DIFFERENTLY AS RECENTLY AS 10ISH YEARS AGO, YET WE HAVEN'T CHANGED THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. THIS INCONSISTENCY IS WORTHY OF DISCUSSION AND DEBATE.
To conclude, I do not see us as “rowing” in opposite directions. DON KEYES, WHO I SHOULD HAVE THANKED PUBLICLY LAST WEEK, CAME UP TO ME PRIOR TO THE MEETING PULLED ME ASIDE AND SAID THERE WERE RESIDENTS VERY CONCERNED. THIS IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF ROWING IN THE SAME DIRECTION. FROM YOUR VANTAGE POINT, SEEING AN ESCALATING ISSUE, YOU COULD HAVE REACHED OUT TO AN INEXPERIENCED COMMITTEE, YET YOU DID NOT.
The copy of Ed McTigue’s letter that all of Council received spelled out very clearly that it is the responsibility of the Village to repair or replace sidewalks damaged by the roots of trees the Village has planted. Furthermore, the current condition of the sidewalks creates a tripping hazard and the safety of our citizens should always be our first priority. That is one point on which I will not
compromise or delay taking action. No elected official should. SAFETY IS VERY IMPORTANT AND STREETS/SIDEWALKS NEEDING REPAIR MUST BE ADDRESSED. ON THIS WE AGREE. HOWEVER, I CONTINUE TO RECEIVE MIXED MESSAGES ABOUT RESPONSIBILITY FOR UPKEEP, AND I THINK IT'S WORTH ASKING QUESTIONS WHEN THE VILLAGE HAPPILY SPENDS MONEY ON SIDEWALKS THAT HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN SAVED FOR MORE ROAD & CURB IMPROVEMENTS. FURTHER, THE VILLAGE OPERATED VERY DIFFERENTLY AS RECENTLY AS 10ISH YEARS AGO, YET WE HAVEN'T CHANGED THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. THIS INCONSISTENCY IS WORTHY OF DISCUSSION AND DEBATE.
To conclude, I do not see us as “rowing” in opposite directions. DON KEYES, WHO I SHOULD HAVE THANKED PUBLICLY LAST WEEK, CAME UP TO ME PRIOR TO THE MEETING PULLED ME ASIDE AND SAID THERE WERE RESIDENTS VERY CONCERNED. THIS IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF ROWING IN THE SAME DIRECTION. FROM YOUR VANTAGE POINT, SEEING AN ESCALATING ISSUE, YOU COULD HAVE REACHED OUT TO AN INEXPERIENCED COMMITTEE, YET YOU DID NOT.
What I do see is the need to remind Council members how issues become agenda topics for committee meetings and how items become a part of the Village’s public records. AS WE REMINDED YOU LAST WEEK, COMMITTEES MAY MEET ON ANY TOPIC THEY WISH AS LONG AS THEY POST NOTICE. WE WILL CONTINUE TO OPERATE IN THIS MANNER UNLESS WE ARE LEGALLY PROHIBITED.
I think this would alleviate any such problems in the future.
Sincerely,
Dan Policastro
Mayor
Sincerely,
Dan Policastro
Mayor
No comments:
Post a Comment