Exhibit 7: The Coup de Grace (47)

(47th in a series of posts on parking)

coup de grace: a death blow

Mark “Feedback from Final [Draft] Report Presentation” (77-78) of the June 15 Desman Final Report as Exhibit 7 and last.

Gadfly is absolutely befuddled by his interaction with BPA over this document.

In a nutshell:

• Gadfly seeks BPA records of the April 12 public meeting on the first draft of the Desman report (interested in how public comment might have affected the final report)
• he is told by BPA that no records exist, even in response to a Right to Know request
• he spars a bit heatedly with BPA at the Sept 20 meeting on the meter rate increase over the lack of such records (the interchange is on video), which is not only not refuted by BPA but implicitly affirmed
• he apologizes the next day for getting heated, and apologizes twice more later, once in front of the BPA Board
• he discovers that the “feedback” record he was looking for is now at the end of the final Desman report (which was not available till sometime after Sept 20), the only addition to the draft report
• he is surprised
• he cannot understand why BPA formally and then personally denied the existence of the “feedback” document
• he seeks explanation three times from BPA, suggesting even the misunderstanding might have been caused by something he did
• he receives no answer from BPA
• he remains befuddled

Gadfly tells you, to quote one of his favorite movies, “It’s a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma!” (Wasn’t Joe Pesci great in JFK!) Did BPA lie to me? O, come on, no, why lie about a non-consequential document? Did BPA in bad faith violate the RTK statute? No, just doesn’t make sense. What motive is there? Did Gadfly screw up in filing the RTK – perfectly possible, but why wouldn’t BPA just tell me that? Doesn’t the semi-confrontation with BPA, recorded on video, with BPA Sept 20 show BPA knew nothing about the feedback document? BPA wouldn’t have misdirected in public, would they? Did the document come to light after Sept 20? But then why wouldn’t BPA just say so?

The document that Gadfly was told by BPA didn’t exist does.

And no explanation.

“It’s a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma!”

So Exhibit 7 is the coup de grace as far as I am concerned about dealing with the BPA.

Gadfly ends where he began.

Twisted.

I don’t think I would do business with BPA until some things are straightened out.