[RP TownTalk] TownTalk Digest, Vol 62, Issue 6

[Lou King]

Ms Lefkowitz,

I'm sorry, I find you broad brush approach to elected officials too 
irrational for response with a smile. (Please note I did not say you are 
irrational - I fine you comments...) The type of generalization 
reflected in your posting, in my opinion, underlies prejudges of all types.

I do not understand what correlation you see between you example of 
officials actively conspiring to usurp the law and the current local 
example of officials publicly announcing a closed meeting and the 
purpose as required by the law. The results of that meeting are to be 
made public.

Thanks to my/our Ward One Council Member Jonathan W. Ebbeler we all can 
read the law without having to dig it out for ourselves - he also 
included references. If you (anyone) has evidence of local malfeasance 
PLEASE bring your facts to light! If proven, I will hold the rope to 
hang the SOB. Yes, I am dismissive of innuendo. And innuendo is all I 
have heard so far.

When discussing the legality of a publicly announced closed meeting, 
opinions pro or con about the Cafrtiz project are not relevant. Sense 
the law isn't going to get changed in time to affect what happens to the 
Cafrtiz property, let use stay focused on facts and thing that can be 
influenced.

Returning to you earlier posting:

Quote -- The bottom line is....is this meeting in violation of the 
Maryland Public Meetings Act?  Or the sunshine law, or whatever it's 
called?  Or is it not?  If it is, the council should not have such a 
meeting.   If it is not, they can.


Adrianne Lefkowitz
Madison Street
-- Unquote

If you missed it I was agreeing with you. As for the end of your last post:

"I can't speak to any potential issues with the way Riverdale Park works..."

Nor has anyone else with facts.

Lou
O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop HTML mail - www.asciiribbon.org

Euniverz at aol.com wrote, On 9/9/2011 5:03 PM:
> COC/Keeper;