“Ha! Not even close.
“I stated first that I didn’t care if Dr. Packard answered my question on the spot or added it to the list of answers that he was going to send to Ms. Collins. This was following the discussion about how to respond to questions, topped off by Attorney Kerrick’s advice that nothing be given in writing to Ms. Collins as Ms. Collins had threatened to sue several times.
“I then stated that I was one of the people who had been denied the feasibility study under a FOIA request and that I had appealed, and I expected to hear about the response to my appeal within the next day or two.
I recalled a statement by Dr. Packard earlier in the meeting where he said that ‘some people who understood these things had looked at the feasibility study and thought it was a good project.’
“I clarified that I was not quoting him as I remembered the content but not the exact language. He nodded in what I took to be agreement that I had captured the essence of the statement he made.
“I then asked that, while I waited for the reply to my appeal, perhaps he could tell us who these people were and maybe alleviate my concerns about the study that way.
”So, how much else of the last two year’s worth of minuted is skewed? This meeting has been taped. If we were to listen to the tape, I’m sure my memory of what I said is pretty close. Oh, and I’ll take credit for the transparency quote if they want me to, but I think that was Ms. Kurtz.”
Here is how the minutes summarized her comments:
“Ms. Berendt stated that she made a FOIA request for the Feasibility Study, and was denied. She stated that the Board needs to look at how we can improve its transparency.”