Why use a state marshall? (hWg 24)
Q: What were the events that led to CT Combustion's conclusion that documents (to be given to the Council) had to be delivered by a state marshall?
A: I still don't know.
But here's a couple of hotWatergate clips that, IMO, best address this question that remains unanswered:
followed by:
With the exception of CT Combustion specifically mentioning "Bid 1" (a July - October 2007 timeframe) and the August 2007 and October 2007 PBC meetings... is there any clear explanation on which PBC meetings are being discussed?
And who is the town secretary mentioned by CT Combustion?
Unfortunately, I don't expect to ever get any sort of satisfactory explanation for this because I'm sure "these aren't the droids we're looking for."
Tim White
UPDATE: In watching the video again, I noticed that PBC asserts that CT Combustion tried to provide information at a meeting... but PBC does not state which meeting. Nonetheless, CT Combustion agrees that they did try to hand deliver information at the August PBC meeting.
Regardless, CT Combustion further asserts that they tried to convey information to the PBC for the October meeting... (and if I still have this very convoluted situation right!) that point remains unaddressed by anyone.
So what happened in October?
Was information (delivered by CT Combustion to Town Hall, but) withheld from the PBC at their October meeting?
8 comments:
Tim: I think you are misinterpreting. I watched the meeting video a few nights ago. I think CtC is trying to say that they turned in information to the PBC for distribution and the PBC didn't address it. If the PBC said "they didn't get it" when CtC knows from a sec that they actually did, they would wonder what was up, so next time they didn't trust the system and took more definite steps to get their information in. I think CtC is saying the PBC may have withheld info, not the other way around. That's the way I took it.
Poorly worded on my part... lemme try to reword it.
I added the (part in parentheses).
Watch the vid. The second one at 1:30-- the PBC head says that they got a letter. If the PBC didn't address it or said that they didn't receive it, you may have your explanation.
If I am right, you may forward my fee for pointing this out to you to the Norton School debacle fund. ;)
Just watched the 5/27 TC meeting and had to chuckle when Ecke stumbled over the word "acquisition" and said "accusation."
It is odd that he was the only one who voted against the CT Combustion bid award the second go around.
2:46... For clarity, CT Combustion specifically mentions two meetings (August and October).
PBC refers to one meeting, but does not specify which meeting.
For all the hotWater(Investi)gating that was done by the TA... the Council never got clarity on this.
But the majority has no interest in understanding this. Assuming this ends up in court, I'm trusting that our courts won't show such indifference.
Is CT Combustion pursuing their lawsuit?
How would I know? If it's something that will end up in the newspapers... there's a very good chance that I'll be the last to know.
From the meningitis at the pool, to the cop in Wolcott or the corruption memo... I've never been able to convince either Council Chair or the TM to provide that information to me. As the Council Chair recently made clear... it's perfectly fine for him to know about the corruption, but to withhold that information from me... NBD apparently.
Remember... control the information and you control the agenda.
Putting the half joking aside though... I presume they will, but I don't know.
Whatever happens, I hope someone gets to the bottom of it... because the majority certainly hasn't.
Post a Comment