Response from commission would bring balance
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
1 of 3 free articles.
Editor,
The following is an open letter to the Polson City Manager, Mayor, and City Commission.
A report in the Valley Journal, Sept. 23, 2010, referred to a letter written by the Polson Chamber of Commerce board indicating a lack of transparency and failure to communicate at recent city commission meetings. No details were given regarding the claim. A local real estate broker was also quoted in the article saying he witnessed the treatment of Water Superintendent Tony Porrazzo, when he walked out of a commission meeting. (The meeting he referred to was March 15, 2010.) The real estate broker’s reference to “treatment,” evidently, was intended to support his statement the City Commission was, “not moving forward the way it should.”
The broker raised two questions, based on what he said he “sensed” as obvious, “Are we going to have government by ambush?” “Are we going to have back room deals?” Statements, like these, with no response from the commission, allow accusations an unfair ability to distort and influence citizens’ perceptions. The ability to respond would provide a more balanced approach.
What concerns me is that there is very little in-depth public affairs journalism or investigative reporting available to the community. How can sound bite accusations be responded to? Those who have reason to believe the accusations are wrong, or distort an issue, can research commission minutes and other documentation to try to give a broader view of an issue.
The March 15 agenda item, relating to Mr. Porrazzo walking out of a meeting, had to do with a decision regarding the Tamco, or Meridian, building located on public land on Kerr Dam road near the sewer lagoons.
During the meeting a situation occurred in which some city employees, who supported the purchase of the Tamco building, withheld information the commission had specifically asked for and were waiting to review. I believe the record shows the staff members who withheld the documents were aware they were acting contrary to the commission’s wishes.
It seems fair to say the real estate broker had a “special interest” in wanting the city to purchase the building and had a business connection with the person who was attempting to sell the building. His description of the “treatment” of Mr. Porrazzo may have been self-serving rather than an effort to purely and simply inform.
Margie Hendricks
Polson
