Pressing Issues

Ahh the press. Don't ya just love 'em? Let's start with the Beacon. First they print an inaccurate article regarding the proposed gas wells. Then they print an inaccurate retraction. I wont go into detail here. Check out Molly Benedum's blog for details. I am hoping the public forum August 9th will clear up the confusion. If confusion is what you want to call it.

Now to touch on the Falls News coverage. A quote from the board president stating "the board used the December 2005 evaluations" of the CEO and CFO is absolutely untrue. In executive session June 28th the board was handed a paper prepared by a fellow board member and told "this is what I think we should give them". She wasn't even using the proper base salary for our CEO until I pointed it out to our CFO Monday.

The board was working on our own evaluation format and preparing goals to use for an evaluation. If you listen to the tape of the July 19th meeting (public request) you will hear the explanation of how the board member responsible for the raises came to the amount proposed. You will hear a lot of I checked this and I compared that. You will not hear about anything the board checked into or compared. Since three people seemed prepared for these raises at Wednesdays' meeting but not Monday when I talked to them, I can only assume that some board members did discuss a raise. When and where I have no idea. I wasn't invited to that meeting. I also know that another board member was on vacation from our last meeting through this week, so I can safely assume she wasn't discussing previous evaluations with other board members. So the question is when did the "board" of three discuss these evaluations? Or did the Falls News make a mistake? Even the CEO and CFO both admitted to me that they were surprised to see this item on the agenda considering they had not asked for raises.I'm really tired of playing this game. Voters and tax payers should know that three board members are making all decisions and according to statements made to the press, having meetings and discussing matters unbeknownst to anyone except themselves. Is this the transparency you were promised?

Another subject I'd like to touch on is the assumption that once a decision is made by the board it should be supported by the entire board regardless of a personal vote. This is not in my nature. I cannot vote no on raises and then pretend I like the idea and be supportive of it. Who does this benefit? The only way for voters to make informed decisions is to be clear on whom supports what ideas. I refuse to confuse people by pretending I support a decision I voted against. I'll blog about gas wells later this week. I must prepare for the jolly agenda meeting. Ta ta.