NVN Publisher/Editor Graves said this week in his op-ed:
“For some time, Klein has giddily derided the city for its handling of water issues, traffic and other matters. He has accused the NVN of sweeping matters under the rug….
My hope is this finding will result in less mudslinging and fewer baseless accusations, which only helped to fuel a fire that clearly never should have been lit.”
I continue to assert that the NVN DOES “sweep matters under the rug”. They continually omit and leave out key and important facts in stories. Either they do this through their own lack of knowledge or negligence, or they have purposefully kept important information from the public. I discovered this for myself 4 years ago next week, when then-NVN Editor Graves made a decision NOT to inform the public that then-Mayoral candidate Ron Harding had declined to participate in the NVN’s Town Hall Forum. To this day, Mr. Graves has not informed the public why he decided to keep this important bit of news from the public nor has his newspaper reported that the NVN did keep that news under wraps. THAT was important news for the voters then, don’t you think?
I contacted a local daily newspaper editor to ask them if keeping information from the public is a practice in newspaper reporting. He said in all of his years, he had never heard of that and his newspaper has never kept important news information from the public.
Anything this Blog puts forward is supported by public documents and facts.
What Mr. Graves did NOT report in this weeks story titled “Auditor debunks channelers claim” is that the State Auditor only examined what they were requested by a Citizen Hotline comment about whether the city’s Golder Water Study contract was valid and whether the Water Study itself was something the city should have funded.
Of course, a city has a right to enter into contracts and pay for whatever they want. I never wrote the State Auditor questioning that.
This issue is not about the validity of Golder Water Study contract with the city.
This is about the city’s vagueness in protecting the public’s interest & in keeping their word to the taxpayer –
FIRST WE HEAR-
In late 2006, the City Staff Report says Through the Conceptual Master Plan process for the Thurston Highlands community, there will be a determination on the pro-rata share of private financial participation towards this project [Golder Water Study].
THEN WE GET THIS FOLLOW-UP FORM THE CITY-
Ms. Badger was quoted in the NVN February 2, 2007 saying,
If a good water source is found on the Thurston Highlands site, developers will have to pay their fair share [for the Water Study], which won’t be determined until the Environmental Impact Statement is complete later this year.”
It’s after the EIS when it will be determined how much they have to pay.”
The EIS finally came out almost 2 years after I brought this issue into the open, and upon the EIS being made public, the developers defaulted and left the city with massive debt. Since the city had no contract with the developer to be repaid for their undetermined “pro-rata share” of the Water Study, the city received nothing from the developer when they defaulted at the public issuance of the EIS in Fall, 2008.
Now, if you ran a business, would you verbally agree (without contract) to be reimbursed at some future time for a job you would do for a undetermined pro-rata amount?
This begs a question: why did the city not require the taxpayer get repaid by the developer for the Golder Water Study?
This just never made any sense.
Would you run your business this way?
Regardless of the State Auditor’s findings, Mr. Graves, this is a question of what is the right thing to do on behalf of the taxpayers the city is supposed to protect – the ethical thing to do in the public’s interest.
You can giddily gloat that the “Audtor debunks…claims”, however while covering issues of ethics for Roy & Rainier issues, the NVN continues to omit those facts in Yelm!