Email exchange between Gordon Weil and Burr Taylor
|
I was offended by Selectman Weil's irrational rant during the
Selectman's announcements during tonight's meeting (2/19/04). I was
particularly concerned when he included the local websites among the
media whose (in his approximate words) "obvious bias against the
project undermine any claims to objectivity." I believe there is plenty on
non-objectivity to go around, including the Selectmen (Did
you notice that neither selectmen complained about those speaking for the
project -even though their comments related to Len Freeman's program not
the selectmen. Len Freeman's comments were appropriately, and politely
directed to the Selectmen. Mr. Weil looked at the rules as Len Freeman
came to speak. I wonder if he was looking for a pretext to call Len out of
order.)
Therefore, I am publishing an exchange of email Selectman Weil and I had
during the last couple of weeks. In the space at the right I have put some
comments about the messages..
www.Harpswell.info (by implication) as one of. I think it helps to put Mr.
Weil's comments in perspective.
If anyone has a comment about this discussion, I will be happy to add them.
I have no desire to make unfair comments about Mr. Weil.
|
From: Burr Taylor
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 11:02 PM
To: Gordon Weil
Subject: Harpswell Per capita income
Gordon,
I am wondering where you get your data on per capita
income. This is the 2000 Census.
According to the 2000 census the following towns had the
following per capita income: Harpswell - $30,433, Bowdoin - $17,260;
Bowdoinham - $17,260; Topsham - $21,135; West Bath - $23,022; Brunswick -
$20,322; Freeport - $27,724.
This is much different from what you asserted.
Burr
|
I thought I was making a simple point
about a misstatement Mr. Weil had made. It turned out differently. |
|
From: Gordon Weil
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 11:53 PM
To: Burr Taylor
Subject: Re: Harpswell Per capita income
Burr
I do not recall making any such assertion. I have never
spoken of per capita income but of median family income.
Here are the 2000 census data:
Family Per Capita
Harpswell 40,611
30,433
Bowdoin 53,250
29,257
Bowdoinham 42,687
17,260
Topsham 47,682
21,135
At this hour, I will limit myself to SAD 75. I appreciate
the opportunity to answer the question, but I would also appreciate your
being clear on what I said. As you may know, Harpswell is said to be the
town with the greatest income disparity of any town in the state.
We should not overlook those families with incomes below
the median.
Gordon
|
First, of course, he denies
remembering saying it. As it says in the next message, I heard it, two of
my neighbors heard it and John Floccher. Mr. Floccher used it as an
example of a FACT, in a public meeting. He had his facts wrong.
Then, Mr. Weil says he think I should be
clear. In fact, I was clear about what he said. On the other hand Mr. Weil
was not clear.
Then he tells me not to overlook people
with below median income. Hello!! why is he telling me this. |
|
From: Burr Taylor
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 7:09 AM
To: 'Gordon Weil'
Subject: RE: Harpswell Per capita income
Gordon,
I thought I was being clear. That was what I thought I
heard at the Selectman's meeting. I checked the tape of the hearing and
apparently Mr. Floccher heard the same (per capita income) as I did. I am
glad you meant (or said) median family income.
I said nothing to suggest that we should overlook people
with incomes below the median. For what it is worth I was chair of the
affordable housing subcommittee of the Comprehensive Plan and wrote the
first draft of its recommendations.
Burr
|
|
|
From: Burr Taylor
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 8:04 PM
To: 'Gordon Weil'
Subject: RE: Harpswell Per capita income
Gordon,
I happened to hear your discussion of this
issue at the Selectmen's meeting (1/29/04) a few moments ago. I would like
to make a few clarifications, not so much because they are important
substantively, but I am bothered by some of your remarks.
I have no doubt now that
you meant median family income - and that should have been the end of it.
However, I also have no doubt that you
said per capita income. This is corroborated by John
Floccher and my neighbors.
I was clear as to what you said, I think ,
and do not appreciate your related comment below. I did not appreciate
your comment at the meeting which said I interpreted it
as per capita income. I do not know why you felt a need to tell me that
"We should not overlook those families with incomes below the median."
I noticed that at the Selectmen's meeting
you appeared to use median family and median household income
interchangeably. I do not think that was correct. There is a significant
difference between family and household. Please see chart below.
|
|
|
MEDIAN EARNINGS IN 1999 (dollars): |
|
|
|
COMMON NAME |
Per capita income |
Male |
Female |
Median household income |
Median family income |
|
Brunswick |
$20,322 |
$32,141 |
$24,927 |
$40,402 |
$49,088 |
|
Bath |
$19,112 |
$35,064 |
$22,439 |
$36,372 |
$45,830 |
|
Bowdoin |
$17,260 |
$32,975 |
$22,025 |
$42,687 |
$46,094 |
|
Bowdoinham |
$21,118 |
$33,322 |
$28,810 |
$44,779 |
$52,372 |
|
Topsham |
$21,135 |
$35,943 |
$25,581 |
$47,682 |
$52,134 |
|
Harpswell |
$30,433 |
$34,167 |
$30,000 |
$40,611 |
$45,119 |
I do not understand why Harpswell's male and
female earnings are so relatively high, but it is interesting, and the
chart does show a difference between family and household income.
I do not want to belabor this issue. Suffice
it to say that this example explains why I find it difficult to discuss
issues with you as a selectman. I could provide other examples, but
hopefully this serves the purpose.
Incidentally, it saddens me that you feel my
site (www.harpswell.info)
only has negative comments, and that you would be massacred there. You may
or may not know that I spoke up very strongly for you at the horrible
FairPlay meeting a long time ago. I have also worked hard to moderate any
comments that are on my site. I admit a couple slipped through.
Please, I do not want this message to start
anything, but felt it was important to express my opinion to one of my
Selectmen.
Burr
|
This sort starts a new set of emails on the same
subject. Whoops! It turns out he really did
not mean median family income. As he says in the next message, he mean
median household income
Note: He was still not able to admit that he had
mistakenly said per capita income. The mistake was due to my
interpretation - and by implication John Floccher's and my neighbors'
misinterpretation.
And I thought this would be a simple email.
Prior to a public meeting I had asked him how he
felt about giving me a comment about his candidacy. It was then that he said he thought he would be massacred on my site, and
made another unfair (I thought) comment about the site. Therefore, it
seemed appropriate to defend my sense of fairness by saying I had spoken
up for him and for moderate talk in Harpswell. |
|
From: Gordon Weil
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 1:36 PM
To: Burr Taylor
Subject: Re: Harpswell Per capita income
Burr,
First, I regret that you find it difficult to communicate with me. I
shall try to do better.
Second, I may have said "per capita" and, if so, it was not a conscious
slip of the tongue. I have always been referring to household income.
With respect to "family income", that I did say and was mistaken to do so
and should adhere strictly to "median household income".
The point in mentioning this is that in SAD 75, I am concerned that other
towns would be unwilling to discuss the funding formula in the mistaken
belief that Harpswell is a town that can well afford the inequitable
distribution of school costs. We have a considerable number of households
with incomes that make it difficult for them to pay for SAD 75 related
taxes, as the district represents about 60 per cent of the total Town
budget. I am glad to say that the income numbers (and the per student
costs) appear to have made some impression on the other towns.
With regard to your website, I recognize that you have tried very hard to
keep it open to all views and to make it a public service. I also agree
that you certainly are entitled to allow anyone to post materials without
your editorial control. Because it seems that the majority of comments
have been about LNG and in opposition to it in Harpswell, some people have
chosen to regard the site as in itself biased and more a forum for
opponents that a place where they will be comfortable placing comments. I
(and the other selectmen) have tried to provide the best possible lease,
while recognizing that the judgment is up to the Town. We have been the
subject, from time to time, of criticism, which appears to me to go
outside of the bounds of reason and honesty. I
believe that some of that has appeared on your website.
As a selectman, I have no made any comments in any forum on the LNG matter
except, with the other selectmen to the press, and to individuals. As a
candidate for selectman, as I told you, I would accept a invitation from
you to state on your website my position on issues and to discuss my
interest and qualifications for the job.
I hope this message can clarify matters somewhat and look forward to being
in touch with you again.
Gordon
|
Finally, we have settled on median
household income.
Good explanation.
Good beginning!
I never said I did or wanted allow
anyone post anything without my editorial control. As many contributors
know, I exercise moderate control
I have put this statement red, because
red is what I see when I read it. He provides no examples or evidence. He
just believes. In Germany (which he cited in his rant) one would have said
"I believe a Jew did it." In the South, it would have been "I believe a
Black did it."
Finally, he emphatically denies making
any comments, etc. He has to correct that, too. |
|
Gordon,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
I agree that Harpswell's standing as far as median
household income is an important point with reference to MSAD 75.
You make a number of other comments, however, that I am
concerned about.
For example:
We have been the subject, from time to time, of
criticism, which appears to me to go outside of the bounds of reason and
honesty. I believe that some of that has appeared on your website.
What, if any, basis do you have for this belief. On the
face of it, it does not appear to conform to your standard of reason and
honesty. Incidentally, I did Google searches of my site for "Weil,"
"Knight," and "selectmen." I did not find anything "beyond the bounds."
Of course, rhetoric and frustration can up the ante of some participants.
I think I have already told you that I have returned several messages for
the writers to reconsider.
As a selectman, I have no made any comments in any
forum on the LNG matter except, with the other selectmen to the press,
and to individuals.
Perhaps, I can jog your memory a bit. Very soon after
Fairwinds was announced and before FairPlay was formed, there was a
meeting held in Centennial Hall for people concerned about Fairwinds. I
believe Mr. Knight attended a meeting of the fishermen at West Harpswell
School that same night. You sat one or two rows behind where I was
sitting. You were on the left side of the Hall. You stood and made a
comment about your position. I was appalled by the response of many in the
room, particularly by a comment by Spike Haible which I found
embarrassing. Spike sort of apologized. I had my hand up for a long time
because I wanted to comment on the negative comments and was not called
on.
After the meeting, I briefly mentioned to you on your way
out that I thought the meeting was terrible. I, then, proceeded to the
front and (with too much anger) told Phyllis Gamache ???????? that she had
a responsibility to exercise more control over the meeting, and that the
meeting itself was divisive and too full of unsubstantiated information.
I finally sent an invitation to provide information for
www.harpswell.info.
Thank you for your patience.
Burr
|
No comment |
|
Burr,
You are correct about my having said something at the pre-FairPlay
meeting. I do not recall having said anything relative to the substance
of the matter, but rather said that I had been taking note of the comments
and that the selectmen were open to receiving comments about LNG and the
proposed lease. To the best of my recollection, that is the only time
that I have spoken at a public meeting without the other selectmen being
present.
You are providing a public service with the website that you have begun,
and I can appreciate your desire not to exercise editorial control over
the material submitted for inclusion on the website. The Phoenix article
would seem to me to be libelous except for the fact that I am a public
figure. In that case, anything goes, but I am sure that you will
recognize that I might dislike any medium which broadcast the
inaccuracies, especially when it is prefaced with your words: "providing
new details on the history of the Fairwinds Project, including the
Selectmen's role". That introduction might well give the reader the sense
that you endorse the accuracy of the contents.
In any case, I have no interest in pursuing the matter any further, so
will leave the fate of LNG to the voters.
Gordon
|
He admits to making comments, but tries (I
think) unsuccessfully to weasel out of what he said earlier. I think it is
interesting that he doesn't comment on my support of him and my efforts to
change the tones of those opposed to the Venture.
Note that he goes back to saying I do not
exercise editorial control.
Here I think is the core of this issue -
he doesn't like the Phoenix article (see). While I can understand that, I
do not know how I would have known he doesn't. He never told me. If
he had, I would have modified the comment - which I did after his message.
I couldn't ask him, because he did not
want to pursue it any more. |
|
Gordon
I recognize that you do not want to pursue this. I do wish
you had mentioned this earlier. I have added a note to the link. I hope
that is all right.
Burr
|
|
|