Wednesday, June 04, 2008

Springfield Skatepark Association/Springfield-Greene County Parks Mitigation: Example of Open and Transparent Government


First, read this, from the News-Leader, where an astute commentator noted:

"Near as I can tell, there is no News-Leader "position" in this editorial. I think it might be a story. Or a re-hashing of a story."

Heh, see: JackeHammer: The Stage is Set for Springfield-Greene County Parks to Take Over the Skatepark.

Now, from: Life Of Jason, Pythian Castle & Skatepark Update, posted December 29, 2007, apparently, this statement, made by Springfield's Public Information Office around that time, according to Jason, must have been written before it was decided that all parties would be bound by confidentiality agreements prohibiting them from discussing the negotiating mitigation, Jason wrote:

"The response from the public information office was “You are correct, there is another side to this story. However, while the Springfield Skatepark Association has attempted to try this case in the media, we felt it was not appropriate to air all issues surrounding this matter in an attempt to keep lines of communication open between the parties. We have another round of mediation scheduled for January 8* and we are hopeful this matter can still settle. We want to work with these guys if at all possible. But we don’t feel its appropriate to air any details on the matter until we make this further attempt at mediation. After the January 8 meeting we should be in a position to discuss it more fully.”"*

Sure, thanks for all the detailed information on the negotiating mitigation. The public owes you one.

*emphasis mine, and note: The source of the above quote was, Jason has given permission to:

"...use information from any posting ONLY if a link to this blog site is provided and printed identification of the location of the information provided or the full web address of the site,, is mentioned as the source of the information."


Jason said...

You have a problem with me not wanting information posted on my page from being stolen by those who like to lie about other people and distort the truth, Mrs. Melton?

Jacke M. said...

Jason, I was just trying to follow your guidelines. I have no reason to have a problem with your guidelines at your blog. That's your business. I simply wanted to make sure that others knew what they were (in case someone else considered quoting anything you had written from THIS blog).

If this has offended you....?

Jason said...

Oh, it doesn't offend me at all. I just wanted to see what kind of lame justification you would try to make for your over-the-top mocking of what I had posted on my blog. The multiple references to my name, the posting of the regulations from my site, etc. that had nothing to do with the content of your post when all you had to do was reference that you obtained that passage from

I will say you appear to be learning from your mentor well, Mrs. Melton.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like someone is a little prickly. If I remember correctly, Communications 101 teaches the message is in the receiver. How about some real discussion of the issues instead of seemingly personal issues?