RM 01-02-80 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

South Bed Redevelopment Commission Regular Neeting - January 2, 1980 FLOOR DISCUSSIONS (continued) [r. Ellison: The question is whether the :omission has dealt with the matter openly, ublicly, and in a reasonable fashion. ibviously, any time you go*to the step of ppointing outside counsel, it is very clear hat the Commission continues to deal with the latter in a reasonable fashion. Ms. Derbeck, 'ou may know that a matter of this nature is -ery complicated. When there is a tremendous ifference of opinion, the only thing a person an do is essentially rely on the system to .elp it solve the problem. So, the motion hick was made this morning to seek assistance 'rom the Circuit Court Judge is part of a ontinuing Commission process to resolve the atter. While there might be feelings that he Commission do other things, certainly he Commission should be judged very reasonably t this point. . Robinson: I believe some of us on this mission feel that there was.a mistake le, and anybody who doesn't make a mistake not doing anything. r, Butler: Ms. Derbeck, in terms of the omission having been forced to make this ssue public, Mr. Ellison had a press conference, nd made the matter public a couple of days fter Mr. Nimtz received the letter from r. Wagoner. . Derbeck: Yes, but Mr. Wagoner would probably ve gone ahead and made it public anyway. Butler: The matter was resolved between Wagoner and the Commission prior to the xt meeting. Is that not a correct statement? Derbeck: This has been a very publicized ter that I think people are concerned about, I feel they deserve to have these questions wered and you answer the questions your own In a case such as this, on behalf of the tic, I would like the correct answers. I o had a few discussions with Mayor Parent he agrees somewhat with former Mayor Nemeth's orandum. Do you think that the action today acceptable to Mayor Roger Parent? -20-