Here is the agenda from the “meeting of the whole” for last night’s meeting. Columbia news, views & reviews was unable to attend the meeting due to a previous out-of-town commitment. As we have stated repeatedly, unless citizens attend meetings as this one, they rely on the chronicling of traditional and non-traditional  media outlets. Or they rely on the hearsay of others who may, or may not have, attended the meeting and have correctly heard all the commentary.

There are cases in which media reporting of these meetings is secondary-source based, that is, the reports are written based on information provided to the medium by an inside source. No reporter actually attended the meeting.

Typically, this source and Cole Umber’s news site, The Columbia Spy, capture the oral conversations at the meetings – each of us digitally records the meetings. Columbia news, views & reviews offers copies of the recordings for public use – especially for persons who attend the meetings and may have difficulty hearing the goings on due to hearing impairment fueled by an ineffective microphone / speaker system or seemingly purposeful inaudible mutterings by some at the front of the room.

NOTE: Here’s a link to initial coverage about last night’s meeting from the Columbia Spy.

– page two –

OPINION – premised after seeing the letter.

Somehow, an alleged letter from IBS Development Corporation, has surfaced well after the May 18, 2015 Special Council Meeting. The unsigned letter, purportedly written by the president of IBS Development Corporation, William I. Roberts, appears at The Columbia Spy and was distributed to certain sources by via certain persons aligned with the borough.

SOURCE: The Columbia Spy – The letter was obtained by Cole Umber who submitted a right-to-know request to the Borough offices.

Curiously, the letter was not introduced at the meeting by the real estate sales person and Columbia Economic Development Corporation (CEDC) member who pitched the “call center” concept to the council at the May 18 meeting. Add to that, the curious coincidence of the same date of the letter and the meeting, one wonders whether the letter is an effort of “after-the-fact” due diligence.

Not only does the mysterious Mr. Roberts not pitch his own requests for Borough and taxpayer financial support for his adventures in person, he also does not endorse his letters of diligence.

H-m-m-m.

Wonder who wrote the letter?

Wonder how it was delivered and to whom?

Wonder when it was written and delivered?