Your words are approaching a libel. If you have any proof whatsover that members of the Audit Committee have ignored evidence you or others have brought forward - LAY IT OUT. Rather I think you like to see you name in these posts, as all of our meetings are open to the public and you have NEVER graced them with your presence. Nor have you ever called me or another member of the Committee, or even submitted questions by mail. Just to let the rest of the public know how "active" you are. Keep writing your words, but I hope others never confuse typing with telling the truth.
While all are entitled to their opinion in this country, I would hope that those that look to set an example would be more open in their process. While City Council must debate the pro's and con's of an issue in the public, this paper has no transparency in its actions. I am only pointing out that not only did they not pursue valid points of view other than April's, but that they are not held accountable for such actions. I see they also failed to interview other politial candidates, but at least they admit that error. Just in time to look honorable, but too late to change the result. As our old friend the Church Lady would say..."How Convenient!"
Incredible. This paper is the only place where the actions of five independent members of the community and six members of City Council are completely ignored and it is assumed that one city employee was able to completely dictate how this action was to occur and what would be included. YOU INSULT MY INTELLIGENCE when you say that Stan Sewell did this or that. NOTHING COULD BE FARTHER FROM THE TRUTH - and for you to write this tells me that the TRUTH is not what you are after, but some little score you are trying to settle.
You accused a sitting Senator of being on the take in a recent vote. Now I am accusing you of the same thing. I challenge you to defend yourself publicly in debate with me to see where you get your TRUTH from. How hypocritical is the paper now!
This paper has sunk to a new low in editorial process. Without contacting one single member of the Audit committee created by the City Council to address assist them - the very committee that spent months reviewing sample structures from a variety of other municipal and private sources - they have formed their "opinion" regarding the benefits to the citizens of Chattanooga. My "opinion" of the paper's "Opinion" is that is not worth the $.50 that I might pay to read it. In fact, it mirrors the "opinion" of the two council members that they bothered to interview and quote in last Friday's article(both of whom said they were not in favor) and not one word from the six members of the council that supported this . It completely ignores the recommendations of the Director of Municipal Audit for the State of Tennessee as well as one of the most recognized members of the governmental audit process in Academia. I am ashamed to admit that I even read the paper based on this biased and uninformed drivel!
I am calling on my right as a citizen to address the citizens of Chattanooga in the same way that you have and allow require that you post in tomorrow's paper my letter sent to you over a week ago - that you did not bother to post in any way - as a guest editorial in place of yours (you can refer to your opinion piece at the end - as I know you will).
David J. DiStefano, Chairman - City of Chattanooga Audit Committee