Correction to a story you probably haven’t read yet

Point of personal privilege
By Corrin Strong, Editor

The LC News is out today with their report on Monday’s Planning Board meeting by Howard Appell. In it Howard reports that I interrupted a site plan matter to make my protest about FOIL. This makes a good story, one that I’m sure my political opponents will enjoy spreading, it just doesn’t happen to be true.

Because the room was crowded I waited in the hall until the site plan matter was concluded. As I entered the room, I heard Chairman Folts say, “We will now take up the Newman DEIS.” It was at that point that I sought the floor.

Even though I was not in the meeting until then, others had told me in the hall that Folts had agreed to put me on the agenda at the end of the meeting. This was not acceptable to me, because my point was to protest the FOIL violation before the vote, not after it was a done deal.

Fearful that something like this might happen, (I’ve known Howard too long), I e-mailed LC News Editor Mark Gillespie Tuesday morning and asked if I could purchase a political ad on my usual spot on the op-ed page. My intention was to explain my side of what had happened.

I was informed that the newspaper was full and no more ads could be accepted. When I saw the newspaper today I discovered why: there is no op-ed page this week. It’s normal place is taken by a full-page, full-color pro-Lowes ad paid for by our friends from Newman Development!

In other correction matters, the News also printed a letter from District Attorney Tom Moran disputing the quotes attributed to him in last week’s story critical of Judge Patricia Mark’s delay in the appointment of a Special Prosecutor in Petitiongate. Ironically, in the letter, Moran also discloses that there will probably be more delay.

That’s because the Prosecutor appointed, Dale Worrall of the Rochester Law Firm of Harris Beach, will have to withdraw because of a conflict of interest. It is not known when a new prosecutor will be appointed.

2 responses to “Correction to a story you probably haven’t read yet

  1. Perhaps I missed something, but I did not see any statement in Bill’s letter to the planning board chairman as to “when” you wnated to speak but rather simply that you wanted the floor to clear up some issues from the other meeting. Therefore, your opportunity to speak at the end of the meeting appears to be a concession on the part of the planning board in response to Bill’s request. I personally think you were out of order, but that’s just my opinion. Also, it appears to me that if in fact a 3-3 vote meant that the DEIS was deemed complete, that Newman gave another concession by allowing for another extension. I think Newman is being much more reasonable than your portray.

  2. There is no doubt that I was out of order. My position was that the whole proceeding was out of order by trying to force a vote on a matter that the board and the public had not had an opportunity to properly review. It would not do much good to make this objection after the vote had already taken place.
    The reason Newman agreed to the extension is that I think they realized that the board probably would have revoted the issue if they had not, and it seems likely that Mark would have changed his vote to incomplete if his request for more time had been denied.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s