Transparency, and "all that jazz"

Well, Stella just got back with a fresh supply of cellophane, so it's time to make use of it. I'm posting two recent messages I sent off on the subject of the MRRA and Oxford Aviation.

The first is this, to MRRA officials:

I find Oxford's continued web site representation of their potential BNAS occupancy to be extremely troubling. They clearly show that they will occupy the entire Hangar 6 building.

I raised this point at the workshop with the Town Council in September, and you stated that the potential agreement with Oxford is for half of Hangar 6.

Surely there has been more than enough time for them to correct the graphics and content of their web site, and I don't understand why this has not been done.

While some would say that Oxford is free to misrepresent itself however it wishes, they are also blatantly misrepresenting the MRRA position as you described it. They have no right to do so, and you and the MRRA board should be taking direct exception.

Given that the MRRA is the guardian of the public trust, please explain why this clear and intentional misrepresentation has not been corrected, and why you continue to tolerate it.

Thank you

I'll let you know if I get any sort of response. If I do, it will be the first since the "why do you want to know" exchange with the ED many months ago when I first asked questions. Such a welcoming and helpful response encouraged me to continue.

The second was posted to the town council:

Councilors et al:

I am appending below the most recent Forecaster article on news of MRRA and the Oxford Aviation initiative. It is more than two weeks old.

The annual meeting of the MRRA took place on October 22nd. A vote was expected to take place on the Oxford Aviation "agreement," but that did not happen. It appears from the reports that no serious business took place at the meeting, and that the MRRA kept its thoughts on the troubling Oxford issue out of public view.

F. Lee Bailey was in attendance, but did not speak during the public comment period. Jim Horowitz, owner of Oxford, was at the reception and dinner, but did not attend the "business meeting."

I have yet to come across a credible explanation of why F. Lee Bailey is so involved in this initiative. Why he would come to Maine for this meeting and not speak, at least in public, is even more baffling. As to Jim Horowitz, the fact that he showed up, but avoided the public session, raises even more questions, none of which are encouraging.

Now we are left to wonder when the MRRA might schedule a special meeting to take such a vote, which they can do with only 24 hours public notice.

I may be one of the few that expects all such deliberations in the public interest to be conducted with unquestioned integrity. And that representations of these efforts to the public are scrupulously honest.

Accordingly, I find Oxford's continued web site representation of their potential BNAS occupancy to be extremely troubling. I have written to you before on this subject, and as you know, have written directly to the MRRA just a few days ago, to no avail.

Oxford's web site shows that they will occupy the entire Hangar 6 building, even thought the FBO solicitation states that the selected contractor will be housed in Hangar 6.

I raised this point at the MRRA workshop with the Town Council in September, and Steve Levesque replied that the agreement in discussion with Oxford is for half of Hangar 6.

Surely there has been more than enough time for Oxford to correct the graphics and content of their web site, and I don't understand why this has not been done.

While some would say that Oxford is free to misrepresent itself however it wishes, they are also blatantly misrepresenting the MRRA position. They have no right to do so, and since the MRRA is the guardian of the public trust, they should have acted deliberately by now to correct this. And you as the council should be objecting strenuously, in writing, since they have not.

This pure and intentional misrepresentation of the facts comes on top of the sham "job fair" that was held by Oxford in January, advertised to fill 200 jobs that would begin this past June. Reportedly, 1000 plus applicants showed up to apply for these jobs.

Since everyone in the official "loop" knew full well that there was absolutely no way that the base properties would be available by then, or that Oxford would be in any position to deliver on those potential jobs by June, it seems clear that this was a shameful public relations ploy.

This was another major breach of integrity, and the MRRA did not intervene. Even worse, this was a cruel hoax perpetrated on area residents that are anxiously looking for work. Such behavior is shameful and inexcusable, and tarnishes the name of Oxford even more. The MRRA should be embarrassed as well for their tacit acceptance of such unprincipled behavior.

The questions and doubts continue to pile up without response or explanation. Things get only worse, not better. As a result, I once again implore you as a council to lobby strongly to protect the interests of the town, the region, and it's residents. To repeat, you have just as much influence in this situation as Bailey and Oxford do if business is being conducted honestly.

Respectfully

Any of you who have written to the council know that they are not in the habit of responding, except in very rare cases. Something about not wanting their comments to be in print and on the record. I don't know why that is; do you have any idea?

Life on a one way street can be frustrating enough; add backwards parking to the mix, and you've really got some fun!