Open Letter to Woodstock City Council

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Woodstock City Council,

When you vote at a regular meeting to approve a motion made by a member of the Council, how can a supporting resolution drafted by the City Attorney radically change the content and meaning of the Motion?

Who gives the direction to the City Attorney to add new and different language to a draft of a proposed Ordinance?

Does the City Attorney take it upon himself to draft what he "thinks" you want?

Does the City Manager instruct the City Attorney to add in language that guarantees the failure of one party to whom responsibility for a successful outcome depends?

Can any member of the council or the Mayor direct the City Attorney to include such language?

The draft of the proposed Ordinance regarding the WCLS project and the scheduled demolition of Grace Hall contains just such language. It assigns an impossible condition to Mr. and Mrs. Lemanski.

Even if a group or newly-established foundation bought Grace Hall for $1.00 and made arrangements to move it, demolition would proceed, according to the drafted Ordinance, because the Lemanskis would not have fulfilled the condition of the Ordinance.

The City seems to have an "agenda" here and that is to cause the demolition of Grace Hall, no matter who or what is trying to save it.

Are you really operating in good faith and following Due Process?