Letter to the editor
August 12, 2004
To the editor:
Be very clear – there were no omissions by the grand jury in its review of redevelopment. While I am pleased that Mr. Crawford agrees with me on the contribution of volunteers, I must once more accuse him of using half truths and innuendo to mislead people.
Bill knows full well that grand jury proceedings are confidential and that no member, by law, can reveal what goes on in the grand jury room. Each witness has a statutory guarantee of confidentiality. He has no idea of who we may have talked to or what they said, other than as contained in public documents or public proceedings. Let me assure you, however, that no stone was left unturned.
The question I have is that Bill Crawford was in charge, as a council person and member of the redevelopment board – the people he questions in his letter, (Aug. 6) all worked for him – why didn’t he ask them himself? And while the meaning of Page 41 of the report may not have been clear to Mr. Crawford, it was intended to ask of the managing board: Why not? Why did you not ask for clear, understandable information?
There was certainly no implication on my part that anyone was criminal, only an attempt to identify the problem. Let me restate it: “It is the job of those managing the project to get sound, reliable information and to be able to detect when the information they are receiving is not the best.” This is why, in large part, the recommendation of the grand jury was that future redevelopment boards have on them experts in the various aspects of redevelopment. An account-auditor, for example, may have seen problems in accounting that a lay person, on the giving and receiving side, might miss.
I can only wish that, had Mr. Crawford really wondered why, he might have just asked me rather then attempt to malign the hard work of the 19 volunteers who were not bent on casting blame or exposing alleged bad guys in the closet, but who wanted to make a sincere effort to assist the city in future projects.
Recommended Stories For You
We can’t change the past – we might, however, learn from it.
South Lake Tahoe
Editor’s note: Letters by candidates for office will not be run previous to the election when they pertain to the election. We will allow candidate statements at a later date. Long, a candidate for South Lake Tahoe City Council, is writing in response to a previous letter.
Trending In: Opinion
- Guest column: Progress made on workforce housing but more can be done (opinion)
- Letter: Vote ‘yes’ on Measure T in South Lake Tahoe (opinion)
- Letter: Consider fees, not a ban, to fix VHR issues (opinion)
- Letter: ‘Thank you for keeping me updated’
- Letter: Jessica Morse the right choice for Congress (opinion)