Karen Noonan, the President of the Theatre Historical Association of America wrote this letter to the Mayor regarding the BDC and the Senator RFP process. She wants theater preservation experts to guide the BDC's plans for the Senator. I have been told that Ms. Noonan agreed to serve on the RFP panel and represent her large membership base of historic theatre aficionados and professionals with the proviso that the BDC does not consider her a historic theatre redevelopment professional of the type she feels is required to successfully plan and manage the transition of The Senator to its new incarnation. These established professionals have guided many other high profile iconic historic theatre redevelopment projects across the nation in the last 30 years.
Another chapter in the Senator saga...
Comments (60)
Bravo Adam! This emerging bdc scandal is growing , thanks to the fearless, tuned-in Adam Meister who just dropped the other shoe. If there are any BDC defenders left out there on the payroll, it's time to launch the defaming personal attacks on Karen Noonan, like with Laura "Astrogirl" Perkins.
But lets see now..., was it our brazen city council guy who claimed that Laura Perkins was a lone "obstructionist" misrepresenting the truth? So now what? Karen Colizzi Noonan is one of the most well respected historic theatre leaders in America as the President of THSA. Seems like Ms. Noonan had enough of the BDC back room hustle and she stood up to corroborate "Astrogirls" gutsy stance on the BDC's secretive RFP process. The process has become a shambles because the BDC refuses to seek or allow objective expert evaluation of the RFPs to ensure the best choice of the two rfps for our new Mayor to endorse and announce to her constituents.
Noonan writes to the Mayor in her open lette
Noonan writes to the Mayor in her open letter, "Your administration has a small window of opportunity to create a safe environment for the Senator to flourish in the decades to come. The eyes of the Preservation Community are on Baltimore as this historic decision is made." Let's hope that Mayor Rawlings-Blake heeds Noonan's wisdom. Hopefully she realizes that the shady character she just kicked-to-the-curb, Andrew Frank, who plotted Baltimore's taking of the Senator Theatre from its former owner, seized a renowned and irreplaceable national historic monument that really belongs to America's future generations
Mr. Meister, to flesh out your information a bit... I've been corresponding with Ms. Noonan regarding this issue, and what she tells me does not entirely jibe with what you've written here. According to Ms. Noonan, she agreed to participate in the BDC's advisory panel as a representative of the historic theater community (no "proviso" as you mentioned). At a LATER point in the panel's deliberations, Ms. Noonan felt that the discussion had passed beyond her area of expertise, and suggested that the panel seek technical assistance from consultants with credentials in historic preservation, and specifically historic theaters. Two consultants were used: Marty Azola, a local contractor with extensive experience in historical preservation, and John Bell, executive director of the Tampa Theatre. Mr. Bell was reached through the League of Historic American Theatres, located here in Baltimore. Mr. Azola participated in person because he's local, Mr. Bell in writing because he's in Florida.
One further comment in response to "Tiny Avenger"... it doesn't appear that Andrew Frank or anyone else "seized" the Senator from its former owner. The former owner defaulted on his mortgage, and the property was foreclosed upon. It's a sad situation, and all too common in this crappy economic climate.
Adam, thank you for the new information.
Stu, is Ms. Noonan aware you are using your private correspondence with her to now speak for her?
Where's Towson U's WTMD Radio & Buzz Cusack's Charles Theatre in all this?
Laura Perkins was sending out letters like this weeks ago, followed by Tom Kiefaber, then Karen Colizzi Noonan, and they all (deliberately, evidently) fail to mention the facts that are of most concern to the people of Baltimore. The BDC's RFP selection process is between the WTMD group & the Charles Theatre group. That's it -- just these two. There are no other players.
Both Towson University and the Charles Theatre are well-experienced in historical architectural preservation. Both are well-respected & loved in the region.
I can't understand why all these people -- including you, Adam, and the other writers on this page, don't want the public to clearly understand what this is all about. Why is the most important part of the story being edited out of the story?
Why, Adam?
Regarding the extremely limited and insufficient expert input that was brought in by the BDC: Marty Azola has no experience with historic theatres, which was admitted by Kristen Mitchell of the BDC in the recent public Govanstowne Business Association meeting.
John Bell is the only expert with experience in any of the relevant fields of film exhibition or historic theatre redevelopment and preservation that was consulted. In John Bell's case, he is the highly respected operator of the Tampa Theatre, which has film as part of its programming. He was consulted by email once and answered a very short set of questions. And if the BDC and their fans are going to keep citing John Bell as the only expert they consulted in the historic theatre field, then they should make public what John Bell said, because what he said wasn't what the BDC apparently wanted to hear, and his input was promptly ignored by BDC officials and most of the panel.
I want to thank Stu for clarifying my position and offer my personal comments. He is correct, there was no "provisio". Initially, it seemed like my scope of knowledge would be sufficient. When the discussion surpassed my expertise I suggested that the board contact the League of Historic American Theatres. The BDC immediately contacted them and the League worked to connect them with one of their association members.
More importantly, my reason for stepping off the BDC committee was primarily because of my physical location in New York state. I participated in the initial 4 hour meeting by phone which was enlightening and productive. As you might imagine, it is extremely difficult to truly contribute by remote access. I felt that someone physically sitting at the table would be of more benefit to the deliberations. I remain committed to the respectful reuse of the Senator Theater and wish the City of Baltimore and the Senator Theater a successful outcome.
Ms. Noonan,
Thanks you for correcting my original post. I am sorry for the mistake.
Adam Meister
Mr. Ellsberry- I believe I have linked to mainstream articles in the past that talk about how WTMD and Buzz Cusack are the only entities competing for the Senator. I thought this was common knowledge, but I should post some sort of reminder in my next article on the subject. My posts are more about the side story. There are some that believe that the BDC already has made their decision and that this process is a sham or sorts. I have tried to present their view of the situation.
Apparently one further point of clarification is necessary.
In case there is any doubt - I do not believe that there has been sufficient ONGOING dialogue with a recognized historic THEATER expert in this process.
In my letter to the Mayor, I clearly state that:
" ... I implore you as a matter of responsible stewardship, to include an experienced, knowledgeable historic preservation expert with specific expertise in theater preservation, on the BDC panel charged with deciding the Senators future.
The BDC has already reached out to the League of Historic American Theaters, located in Baltimore, to supply written input. It is imperative that such an expert physically sits on the commission and has the opportunity to give on-going guidance and consultation as part of the deliberations."
I can be contacted directly at Ebersonian1@aol.com.
> Mr. Ellsberry- I believe I have linked to mainstream
> articles in the past that talk about how WTMD and Buzz
> Cusack are the only entities competing for the Senator.
> I thought this was common knowledge, but I should post
> some sort of reminder in my next article on the subject.
> My posts are more about the side story. There are some
> that believe that the BDC already has made their decision
> and that this process is a sham or sorts. I have tried
> to present their view of the situation.
Thank you, Adam,
Personally, I don't think we can assume that the general
public is aware that the only 2 remaining candidates are
the TU/WTMD Radio group and the Charles Theatre group.
Others on this page are clearly trying to agitate the
public with the impression that things are more dire than
they in fact are. They don't want the public to be aware
of the actual current situation. Baltimore is lucky to
have these 2 finalists! (Don't you agree)
Richard,
What is your objection to having objective experts in historic theatre redevelopment and preservation and film exhibition weigh in on these 2 proposals to find out if, in fact, the experts believe we are lucky to have both of them?
I would just like to know the answer to that question, because the full year of research I have done into issues affecting historic theatres, along with John Bell's input to the BDC, has led me to believe that there is a wide discrepancy between these 2 proposals on their merits and that only one of these proposals will actually work in practice. I would like to have objective experts in the relevant fields weigh in further, however, to find out if that is truly accurate.
Mr. Meister, you wrote:
> I have been told that Ms. Noonan agreed to serve on the RFP panel
> and represent her large membership base of historic theatre
> aficionados and professionals with the proviso that the BDC does
> not consider her a historic theatre redevelopment professional...
You don't say who told you this false information. Can you share the identity of that person?
What a silly exercise in "gotcha" semantics Mr. Goldstone. There is an overarching issue here. As Ms. Noonan and Ms. Perkins have clarified, and many other informed individuals and preservation organizations concur, the evaluation process needs the objective active ongoing evaluation and guidance of experienced historic theatre redevelopment professional[s]. So yo BDC, you're holding a losing hand here so give it up, bring in the pros and let's roll. The BDC's failing to do this thing right form the get go like many cities & towns have done nationwide for over 30 years with a slew of success stories to serve as models to help optimize The Senator's future incarnation. That's all!
There is a vast amount of institutional knowledge out there in a specialized field of endeavor and our beloved national historic landmark Senator Theatre demands & deserves to be redeveloped in an optimal manner. The BDC's head in the sand, ennie-meanie-miney-moe approach to date just doesn't cut it.
I have to admit, I'm mystified by anyone who's against having this process "done right".
If you were told by a doctor you needed an operation for a serious illness and the operation could kill you, wouldn't you seek 2nd or 3rd opinions from experts in the field?
That's what I'm hearing from Ms. Noonan. More expert opinion from those with relevant experience in the field of historic theatres should be tapped to ensure Mayor Rawlings-Blake has comprehensive information when it comes time to decide who gets The Senator Theatre.
Ask yourself: Do I want amateur 'surgeons' or experts?
The head of a national advocacy group says get more expert opinion. Do we risk ignoring that?
With the future of an historic landmark at stake and around $1 million in city money already invested, everyone interested should voice their answer to the mayor. Call, write or Google "Friends of The Senator Theatre" and use our form letter.
Why does everyone keeps refusing to acknowledge the obvious?
1. The selection is between the Charles Theatre group & the TU/WTMD group. That's it. No matter what happens, one of these two extraordinary cultural institutions will take over operations at the Senator Theatre.
2. Most thinking Baltimoreans, most members of the film/arts or historic architecture communities will be thrilled with either outcome. You don't believe me? Adam, ask them -- How many people agree that either winner would be geat for the Theatre & the City? How many people love both TU/WTMD & the Charles Theatre?
There is a tiny minority who are under the perception that they will personally benefit from one side or the other. Most of them are volunteers for the Senator Theatre.
To Laura P, I would love for more professional scrutiny & consultation, I would love for more public input, I would love for more time, more money, less debt owed to the citizens of Baltimore & Maryland, organic pop
Richard,
I would love for less debt to be owed in the future to the city of Baltimore, too. That's why I'm highly skeptical of any proposal that would give the new operator of The Senator more public subsidy than Tom ever got.
I would also love for debts the City of Baltimore owes Tom Kiefaber to be payed back to him. That man saved The Senator over the years with over a million dollars personal funds invested by Tom, his family, and their associates. The Senator would not be there without Tom, and the Belvedere Square district would have suffered greatly economically. Tom's business has paid millions in taxes to the city over the years, too. Tom is never going to get any of that money back, and it has resulted in him losing everything.
None of us stand to benefit from the WTMD proposal, not the Friends of The Senator, not Tom. We are under no illusions about that. I took a risk buying the house behind The Senator, given the city's pattern of taking private land.
The former owner of the Senator isn't really relevant anymore. And Miss Perkins, your suggestion that the City of Baltimore owes money to the former owner of the Senator, when the City was left holding the bag for the defaulted mortgage, is... well, laughable.
Mr. Meister, I really would like to learn the identity of the person who told you that Ms. Noonan agreed to serve on the BDC's advisory panel with the proviso that she not be considered a historic theatre redevelopment professional. Since even Ms. Noonan has admitted that this is not true, I'd like to know who gave you this false information. Can you share that?
Stu, stop with the silly gotcha games, man. This is getting boring, even for you. The point which you are trying to distract from is that Ms. Noonan believes that sufficient input by historic theatre preservation professionals has not occurred. That's why she wrote the letter.
And no, the city was not "left holding the bag" with The Senator's mortgage. The city acquired The Senator at auction for far less than its actual value (I believe the colloquial term is "a steal"), as the result of a corrupt process that, among other things, scared away other legitimate investors. The city was never asked by Senator fans or the owner to acquire the theatre, in fact, they were asked not to. The city never invested a dime in The Senator for over 10 years before acquiring the property last summer.
Miss Perkins, my question was not directed to you, but rather to Mr. Meister. Mr. Meister reported some false information here. I corrected the false information, and Ms. Noonan verified what I stated. I'd like to know who gave Mr. Meister the false information, if he is willing to identify that person. Thanks.
One more thing, Stu. A city's visionaries are always relevant. Always. They are the life blood of its stories and the creators of its history. Mr. Kiefaber is and will remain more relevant than you or I will probably ever be.
Hey, Stuart! Where have you been, man? Media misreports things on a regular basis so why you riding this story? I mean, what's your dog in this fight that get's you so worked up?
To Richard Ellsbury,
My family has been volunteering at the Senator for nearly a year, long before WTMD was even a blip on the radar. We are there one day a week, as we are very occupied the other six. Just how do you expect us to profit from this when all is said and done? Do you know something I don't?
While we're at it, Mr. Tryzno (way cool name!), you made an interesting, but seriously cryptic comment, man. Care to tell us who these volunteers are and how they're gonna benefit and from whom? And, I'll save Stuart the time and ask, where'd you get this info?
Multiscreen operation is the key to survival in the movie-theater business, Mr. Cusack said, a lesson he learned soon after he took over the Charles in 1994. Without the current expansion, his business would have failed, he said. ''With one screen, you're putting all your eggs in one basket to carry the business,' he said. ''You don't have a move-over house to shift a movie.'' In a multiscreen building, when the popularity of a movie wanes it can be moved to a smaller screen and still produce revenue while a new film can be brought into the larger theater.
The city which was in financial straights themselves wind up loaning money to a financially scrap theater. If this was not real I would think that it was a Shakespearean play. People better wake up and see where you money is going. People are leaving this city in droves and pretty soon their will not be anyone left that will make enough money to pay the taxes. Secondly, they need to renegoitate the contracts with the police, fire departments and other unions. If they don't come on board then do like Reagan, if you don't come back to work at a certain time and date then we will not recognize your union, your pension, your seniority or your job. They did it to the umpires, players, and others, Hey City government lets try it here and see how many people will be glad to fill those none union paying dues jobs. Many are experience and would be glad to work.
Just to be clear, the city did not loan money to the former owner of the theatre, they did however take possession of the building, etc. (taking on the financial responsibility) Many folks agree with you that the city (BDC) had no business taking on the financially strapped theatre. Had the BDC done what they told the community they were going to do, in terms of widely and nationally advertising the auction of the theatre, connected with historic theatre redevelopers from outside of Baltimore, they would not have put themselves into this position.
Just to clarify the background information: the City did not loan money to the Senator. However, the City did guarantee half of the former owner's $1.2 million mortgage from First Mariner. (Otherwise the former owner would never have been able to get a mortgage.) The City's guarantee meant that if the Senator had been permitted to go into foreclosure, the City would have been on the hook for $600,000. The Senator was $900,000+ in debt, so First Mariner could have sold the theater at auction for $300,000 and the City would have had to pay the difference.
That's why the City decided it would be better to purchase the Senator's mortgage rather than allow the theater to go into foreclosure. This way the City can control who operates the Senator, making sure that it's still an arts & entertainment venue rather than ending up as a church or whatever.
(Mr. Meister, I think this is why Richard Tryzno Ellsberry requested you provide background information in future postings.)
Stuarts information isn't actually "background" info. Just the mainstream media's coverage.
Stuart,
Do you call Bill Henry to ask him what you should say, or does he call you? Just wondering how that works. It's not true that without the city's loan guarantee, the former owner could not have gotten a mortgage. Just FYI. This is recognizable as Bill Henry's typical spin.
For much less taxpayer funds than they invested to acquire The Senator, the city could have helped Tom Kiefaber catch up on the mortgage payments and get enough ahead that the conversion of The Senator to a non-profit that he and others were working on at the time could have been completed.
I find it very difficult to believe that there's not something highly illegal about using government offices to take a private business from one owner, with the excuse that you don't want to subsidize it, and then turning around and handing it to a rival private business owner who you happen to like better and then subsidizing it MORE than you ever did when it was owned by the previous owner.
Regarding my previous comment, I just wonder if the same federal prosecutors that got Sheila Dixon for accepting gift cards from developers would become interested in this deal with The Senator if the city ends up turning it over to Buzz Cusack and then subsidizing him more than they ever did Tom Kiefaber. Needless to say, I am encouraging Mr. Kiefaber to keep copious records of everything.
Miss Perkins, you may choose to believe that Kiefaber could have obtained the $1.2 million mortgage that he defaulted on, without the City's guarantee. But given that he was already 3 months behind on payments for the Senator's previous mortgage (to the Abell Foundation), as well as behind on tax bills and loan payments to the State of Maryland, it's unlikely that any bank would have issued a million-dollar-plus loan WITHOUT the guarantee from the City. You're welcome to believe otherwise, of course.
I was providing the information about the city's guarantee to provide background information, since some people reading this article might believe some people's claims that the City has been unsupportive of the Senator. If anything, in retrospect perhaps the City should have been LESS forthcoming with funds, as it appears they gave the former owner the financial rope to strangle himself with.
But again, we're discussing the past, when we should be discussing the Senator's future!
The past does matter, but the future we must pursue. To all those against having seasoned experts join the BDC panel in their decision process--WHY? What would be the harm in including experts who have worked on similar cases in the discussions on the future of an historic landmark, a single-screen theatre? Is it that you feel threatened? What do you have to gain, exactly, by prohibiting these experts in entering into the debate? Or, conversely, what do you have to lose?
For the record Stu, Kiefaber did not go to the Abell Foundation for a loan...
The city provided a $180K GRANT to the theatre in 1999 (or 97) to replace the air conditioning system. THREE SEPARATE TIMES, the Baltimore Sun reported this as a LOAN that was not paid. THREE TIMES!!
So do the math on this one Stu. Divide a GRANT $180k by the amount of MD residents that paid taxes that year. Totally blows the constant misreporting that had it's intended effect, that "the tax payers keep bailing out Kiefaber".
And again Stu, you can choose to believe that you are providing background information, but you really aren't. Much like the pew study shows, you are simply parrotting information provided from one source.
You don't really have anything constructive to offer here...
I'm thinking Kate hit tha money! What's the prob with more eyes on the subject? Especially ones that know what they're talkin about! Somethin here we shouldn't see?
Multiplexes ain't got nothin on the Senator I'm all for keeping it open. But sounds to me like we all worked up that the citys got money involved and if Laura P is right about city hall thinking about dumping more money to a new owner, I think we all deserve to know how much & be damn sure it's for good reason! So, I say bring on these theater experts & let us know if we're gettin shafted, if somebody stands to gain or both. Wouldn't be the first time in Bmore.
By the way, I see Tryzno hasn't been back, but hey Stuart, my question weren't important enough for your outspoken self to answer? You get all worked up & talk like an authority on the subject, even tho some of the ladies here are takin your "facts" to task, but you sidestepped a straight question, man. Just like a politician.
Gayle, it's simply false to say that there was no loan from the Abell Foundation. The Abell Foundation OWNED the Senator's previous mortgage.
Although then you go on to talk about grants from the City, so perhaps you are just confused... you DO realize that the Abell Foundation and the City of Baltimore are not the same entity??
I can understand why you are confused about the origin and years of the grants & loans, because the former owner of the Senator received outside funds several times. He received a grant from the City in 1997, loans from the City in both 1997 *and* 1999, and loans from the State in 1999 and 2000. Who wouldn't get confused?
I bring up this information just to set the record straight. But again, all this talk about the Senator's past is a distraction from the real discussion about the Senator's future.
I've been noticing this too. A million comments and such being put out there, but when straight questions are posted there's no direct response. Not looking too good for Stu & Richard in terms of how knowledgeable they really are.
Stu, I never stated that there was no loan from Abell...
Oh and BTW, the BDC and The Abell Foundation are linked pretty closely....
Malcolm, I didn't see any question from you here other than a personal question about me... maybe I missed it. The discussion here is about the Senator, but if you have any personal questions about me, please feel free to contact me privately... my email is stu21202@gmail.com.
Kate asked:
WHY? What would be the harm in including experts who have
worked on similar cases in the discussions on the future of
an historic landmark, a single-screen theatre? Is it that
you feel threatened? What do you have to gain, exactly, by
prohibiting these experts in entering into the debate? Or,
conversely, what do you have to lose?
Hi Kate -
For myself, I'm not opposed to 'including experts', in fact,
it would be an ideal thing, like many other ideal things. It
would be nice if the Senator had 3 floors under it, and a
light-rail out front, but unfortunately it doesn't. Also,
organic popcorn, as I meant to say earlier.
What I'm opposed to is a tiny faction hijacking the operation
for their own opaque ends. It's obvious that the Senator
volunteers' group see this issue as one that could stall the
BDC's RFP proceedings & buy them more time. Why do they need
more time? I don't know. They don't believe in transparency
or full d
... disclosure.
Richard, I think you're cornfused re: FoTS and transperency and disclosure. This is what we've been advocating for! It's CLEARLY the BDC that has issues with transperency and disclosure.
Gayle says:
... transperency and disclosure. This is what we've been
advocating for!
Gayle, Laura P & other Senator insider volunteers are
desperately hoping that one side wins the RFP (for me, and
most culturally-minded folks, either side winning the RFP
would be great for the Theatre & the City).
If they thought their side was winning, they wouldn't be
calling for more professional/expert input. What are their
motives? We can't know what their perceptions are. They
don't believe in transparency or full disclosure. If this
tactic fails to stall the BDC's deliberations, they will
launch another one.
I don't like their attempts to hijack the operation. Of course
their arguments are designed to sound logical. But Baltimore
has already sunk enough into this fiasco. It's time to move on.
(Adam, please delete J. Cleese's comments.
This isn't Monty Python :) ...
Gayle says:
... transperency and disclosure. This is what we've been
advocating for!
Gayle, Laura P & other Senator insider volunteers are
desperately hoping that one side wins the RFP (for me, and
most culturally-minded folks, either side winning the RFP
would be great for the Theatre & the City).
If they thought their side was winning, they wouldn't be
calling for more professional/expert input. What are their
motives? We can't know what their perceptions are. They
don't believe in transparency or full disclosure. If this
tactic fails to stall the BDC's deliberations, they will
launch another one.
I don't like their attempts to hijack the operation. Of course
their arguments are designed to sound logical. But Baltimore
has already sunk enough into this fiasco. It's time to move on.
(Adam, please delete J. Cleese's comments.
This isn't Monty Python :) ...
Richard,
I don't pretend to be very knowledgeable in BDC/RFP proceedings, but it seems to me that if the BDC just allowed someone (with the specific and proper experience of redeveloping an historic single-screen theatre into a modern venue of sorts) into the discussions, the process would not be stalled. So what's the big deal?
Obviously, those who are fighting against this must have motives for doing so, speaking of transparency and disclosure. Back to my original question--directed at those who oppose having an expert's opinion--why? What is there to gain or lose by prohibiting an expert from joining into the process?
It seems like a valid and proper path. There's an expert; hey, let's have him (or her) come join us and offer his/her expertise. Why wouldn't the BDC want that?
Kate,
There has been historical preservation expert input into the
BDC's RFP process. Others can speak to this better than I can.
My point is this: the Senator Theatre's insider volunteers'
group is trying to stall the BDC's selection process in any way
that they can think of, and they will keep at it until they
believe that 'their side' has won. In fact, if they hear that
'their side' is in the lead, they will no longer be pushing for
the expert/professional input, because they will no longer need
it. If their current tactic fails to work, they will launch
whatever else they can think up. Just hang around and see.
If Towson University's WTMD Radio, and Buzz Cusack's Charles
Theatre, and Baltimore City want more expert consultation, then
so be it. But I don't like a tiny self-interested minority
blocking the process for their own perceived, opaque benefit.
Kate, I love hearing from people like yourself, because it highlights how much misinformation has been disseminated about the process, stirring up lots of emotions based on untruthful information.
The facts are this: Karen Colizzi Noonan of the Theatre Historical Association agreed to serve on the BDC's advisory panel based on her expertise with historic theaters. When the discussions got to a point that was beyond her expertise, she asked the BDC to get some additional experts to weigh in. The BDC contacted the League of Historic American Theatres (located here in Baltimore), who referred them to John Bell, executive director of the Tampa Theatre. The BDC panel also received technical assistance from Marty Azola, a local contractor with extensive experience in historical renovations. Mr. Bell's comments were submitted in writing rather than in person, since he's located in Florida. Mr. Azola met with the BDC panel in person, because he's located here in Baltimore.
(continued)
So you see, no one has "prohibited" experts from participating. Even Tom Harris was forced to retract his statements that the BDC "refused to allow" experts to participate.
Your comments, though, illustrate how much misinformation has been spread by parties who have an interest in manipulating the RFP process for their own ends. For example, Laura Perkins, who until recently served on the BDC's advisory panel, had publicly expressed her support for the WTMD plan and her opposition to the Charles Theater plan, before the process of evaluating the proposals had even begun. How could she serve on a panel whose job is to evaluate the 4 submitted proposals, when she had already declared her support for one and opposition to the others??
(continued)
Pages
What do you think?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!