Friday, January 10, 2014


Read Part 1

by email from Cathy Donohue

Only a fool would get into a debate with liars.  It is time to end a game with no winners.  I would, however, like to reiterate a few points.
Why would Fred Weiss, who chaired the meeting, find it necessary to make a very pointed lecture to the committee members about why I was asked to leave.  He did not say that I "chose"  to leave.
He warned them that these meetings are "private".
Councilwoman Robb did bring a guest who was not a committee member.  He asked questions.  Why was he allowed to stay and participate in the discussion.  Is he some kind of special citizen?
Why did the Parks Dept. fail to make any mention in the formal minutes of my presence, my comments or my removal; nor is there any record that I was told I could stay but not comment.  My presence has been redacted as if I didn't exist.  Later, the Parks Dept. published a fabricated version of what happened, but chose to leave an accurate portrayal out of the official  minutes.
No matter what Doty Anderson says, she did receive an e-mail from a stakeholder who is also a member of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.  This e-mail is critical of how I was treated and objects to my being asked to leave.  This e-mail has disappeared.  Most likely, Ms. Anderson is fully aware of the consequences of letting anyone see this message.
Lauri Dannemiller's version of what was said to me is based entirely on what her staff supposedly told her.  I was not told to leave by a member of her staff; but by the facilitator hired by the Parks Dept.   I am absolutely certain of what he told me.  It is now my understanding that all the while she was busy writing denials, she never spoke to the facilitator, Mr. Collins, who is the only person who spoke to me about leaving.  I would be perfectly willing to take a lie detector test if he should deny what he said to me. 
Unless Concilwoman Robb has Superman's ears, she could not possibly have heard the verbal exchange between Mr. Collins and me as she was on the other side of the room, returning to her seat with her beverage in her hand.  Most of the verbal exchange was made at the opposite end of the meeting room, with some of it being held in the foyer.  There were no other persons in the foyer.
I have been deeply involved politically in the city for more than 40 years.  I am not going to throw my reputation down the drain trying to make points to a person (Ms. Dannemiller) who has not done due diligence in seeking the truth or is easily bamboozled by her staff.  
My reputation may suffer a bit of a blow, but ultimately the truth will come into the light. 
I hope that no citizen ever has to be ejected from a city-sponsored meeting about such a vital subject.  It is a lousy form of democracy.  Most citizens who love our parks know that we will need to find new ways to keep them the treasures that they are.  Why does the Hancock Administration think these meetings have to be "private"?  What do they have to hide?  I am pleased to learn that the secret meetings have been cancelled and that future meetings will be open for public participation.
Cathy Donohue


Post a Comment