Jana Metge wrote: > > I completely agree with Greg's point and was very disappointed that no one > from diverse neighborhoods such as Central or a couple of the north > neighborhoods,
� > NRP sent all neighborhoods the same information. In years past, > Central has always organized well. Wizard Marks wrote: This is disingenuous. You, of all people, know what has happened in Central and that CNIA is no longer able to field candidates, get its act together to inform the neighborhood, etc. You're as much, if not more, responsible for this state of affairs than many another. David Piehl writes: Since Jana has not been the director of Central for a year and a half, I think it's presumptuous to assume that she has any direct knowlege of the current state of affairs at CNIA with regards to their ability or lack of ability to carry out citizen participation requirements. Clearly by her statement, Wizard does not feel CNIA is currently able to function in this capacity, and I agree; however, this situation has unfolded over the last year due to a number of influences, and Jana is not to blame. (Sabri blamed Jana for everything....who do you believe??) If you read the transcripts of the recorded conversations between Sabri and Herron, you might come to the conclusion, based on Sabri's statements, that the destruction of CNIA was part of his plan to access untold amounts of public dollars for himself. While many things factor into the situation, I consider Sabri's subsidy quest to be a primary driver, although he disguised it in many other forms. It was the same hunger for subsidy on Sabri's part was a catalyst in Brian Herron's problems. Terrel Brown wrote: (snip) The only thing that wasn
�t said was that Jana Metge was the paid employee of the Central neighborhood group (CNIA) who ran the organization at the time it fell apart when Basim Sabri and his group tried to take over. Like many government employees she just moved on to a similar position in another organization (CLPC in Loring Park). The story at the time was that she was pursuing legal action against CNIA. Those who run such organizations should expect to be held to standards as City department managers and expect the same public criticism from those who take exception to the policies they promote. David Piehl writes: Clarification: Jana wasn't and isn't a government employee. She was, though, director of CNIA when Basim organized his takeover (Wizard was on Basim's slate of candidates, though she later resigned when she perceived problems with the way the board was handling business). As the director of the organization, Jana's job was to implement organizational strategies, etc as set forth by the board of directors - which she did. No board is perfect, and CNIA has never had a perfect board either. Basim Sabri put his personal objections to Jana in writing on more than one occasion, the common denominator in all of these situations was that Jana adhered to policies of the board, NRP, and MCDA on development and subsidy proposals, and Basim was not patient enough to wait out the processes - he wanted the neighborhood to rubberstamp all of his projects as "good". The board, NRP, MCDA, and private funders required process. Some projects were good for the neighborhood, and made it through the process - like 301 E Lake, and others where in my estimation, only good for Basim's business interests, and detrimental to the neighborhood in the long run. Character assasination is one of Basim's preferred tools in neighborhood conflicts, and it's time it stopped. Wizard has given Jana well deserved credit for many accomplishments at CNIA in the past, and like any organization, there have also been problems. In my opinion, Jana generally tried to work with criticisms and learned from them. The Sabri-related events are an abberation given Basim's secret ulterior motives that are now documented. Jana won a settlement in her suit against CNIA, by the way, the facts of which are public record for anyone interested in such details. David Piehl Central ______________________________________________________________________ The information contained in this message is private and confidential information which may also be subject to the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. This information is intended only for the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the message. Thank you.
