LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: FORHAN PROTESTS NEWS COVERAGE OF CLOSED MEETING

Dear Editor:

To set the record straight on the series of articles you have printed in your newspaper. They are full of inaccuracies. Here are my beginning comments for the state of the city address that was presented on Feb. 7, 1994, that will show the true facts concerning the series of events referred to in your newspaper.

"During the last few weeks a barrage of untrue and derogatory statements have been made concerning me and my relationship with the Southeast Missouri Port Authority Board. The Scott City Council has also been viciously attacked. I have been silent long enough. The record needs to be set straight. I do this now fully understanding that a new barrage of lies and personal attacks will be unleashed by the same people and their organizations toward me.

Several degrading articles and headlines have appeared in the Southeast Missourian. Mr. Marty Potashnick, a port board member was quoted in two of those articles, making serious, untrue statements about me.

These are the facts as they happened:

1. Mr. Potashnick says I haven't been cooperative.

I made the initial contact with Mr. Dan Overby, executive director of the port, on the day an article appeared in the Southeast Missourian stating that the port was going to try to have riverboat gambling at their location. I suggested that the port consider friendly annexation into Scott City, since the EPA would probably disapprove a sewer lagoon in the flood plain. The response from the port board was a letter stating that they were not interested in any annexation. That is the only official document the city has received from the port on annexation. During the campaign by Casino Magic, I was never contacted by their representative. I did attend the two public meetings to see what they had planned.

After the issue failed, I contacted Mr. Doug Whitehead of Casino Magic. We met on a Saturday morning in late November for about two hours. He expressed an interest in placing the gambling issue on the ballot at the earliest possible time. I outlined the steps necessary for action. They haven't changed since then. The steps are:

A. Have the port board start the proper actions to friendly annexation into Scott City. This would be complicated since the port is not contiguous to the city. Also, I showed him the easiest method for annexation.

B. The port board should also send the city council a letter requesting that the gambling issue be put on the ballot.

At the conclusion of the meeting, he said that he was looking forward to working with me; however, he had a larger project in St. Louis to work on. I told Mr. Whitehead that if the port board wants all this to happen, it could.

My next contact with Mr. Whitehead was after an article appeared in the Southeast Missourian that basically said he wasn't interested in a Scott City location. I promptly called him to find out what was wrong. He assured me that comment was made right after the election before he had met with me. According to Mr. Whitehead, Casino Magic was still interested in Scott City. However, he again stated he was involved in the St. Louis project and would contact me after it was settled. I am still waiting for him to contact me.

A similar situation exists with the Southeast Missouri Port Authority Board Gaming Committee. Two meetings were set up between them and myself. Both meetings were canceled. Additionally, each time a meeting was scheduled, I received an inquiry from the Southeast Missourian. It was apparent that someone on the port board didn't want us to meet. However, I was still willing to meet with the four board members. I am still waiting for them to contact me.

2. Mr. Potashnick says that I am only looking out for the interests of Scott City. That is the only true statement Mr. Potashnick made. I will always look out for the interests of Scott City. Additionally, I have worked very hard for regional betterment. The cities of Jackson, Cape Girardeau and Scott City, with the Cape County Commission and Chamber of Commerce, formed the Cape Girardeau Area Industrial Recruitment Association. I spent many hours in meetings to help pull this idea of regional cooperation together.

3. What Mr. Potashnick says the port wants from Scott City.

A. Most all of the revenue that Scott City would be legally entitled to receive should go to the port.

Answer: For a city our size, we have a very low sales tax income. Yet we have deteriorating streets, sewer lagoons and all the other problems that any city with three or four times the revenue has. Scott City must receive every penny it is due since the demands on city services and infrastructure would increase.

B. Scott City shouldn't have any control over annexed port land.

Answer: Planning and zoning, building codes and other Scott City ordinances would be enforced on any annexed land, just as it is presently on our citizens. Why would anyone want to do otherwise?

C. No assurances have been made by the city that they would approve Casino Magic as the gambling boat operator.

Answer: That's easy. No proposal from the port has been made concerning this company. I am still waiting for the port board to contact me.

Finally, if the port board wants annexation into Scott City, it can happen. However, they must convince the Cape Girardeau County commissioners. The presiding commissioner, Mr. Gene Huckstep, has gone on record as being opposed to it. The concurrence of both county commissions would be required. If they don't, it cannot happen.

In recent days, the city council and myself have been under attack by the Southeast Missourian newspaper. Ms. Cathryn Maya, a reporter, called me Tuesday evening at home. The first words out of her mouth were that she wanted to "really help Scott City" by doing articles on the police and fire departments. Then as an afterthought she asked why the city council had a meeting Monday night. I told her I called the public hearing and special council meeting since a local bar, Rocs', had not renewed their liquor license. It was imperative to have the meeting, otherwise the bar would be out of business. She also asked about the closed session. I told her it was held at the legally called request of Councilmen Oller and Moyers. At that time I asked her for her source of information since she had not been present at the meeting. She said she had received an anonymous phone call.

The next day, I was very surprised at the front page article she wrote. She did quote me correctly about Rocs', however the rest of the article was foreign to me. She didn't state in the article that she had an anonymous source, one that evidently claims that the public hearing and the meeting were illegal.

I expected an article to be in the Sunday edition of the Missourian, but not the ridiculous editorial that appeared accusing the Scott City Council of holding an illegal public hearing and a secret and illegal meeting. The writer continued with a lesson about the Missouri Open Meetings Law.

The truth of the matter is simple. The city clerk had the notice for the public hearing published in the Southeast Missourian. Both Ms. Maya and the unnamed editor should have reviewed their own paper before making such rash statements. Secondly, the notice for a closed meeting was posted at City Hall as all such notices are. Thirdly, a reporter for the Scott City newspaper was present for the public hearing and the open meeting. Ms. Maya and the unnamed editor simply did not bother to check the facts. The city council has authorized me to write to 35 gaming companies who either have riverboats or have expressed an interest in placing one on the Mississippi. The port is only one option. If a company wants to help us obtain river frontage, that would be fine. Regardless, the people of Scott City will decide whether to have riverboat gambling or not.

Why were these vicious, untrue statements and articles written? Will they continue? Is Scott City such a threat to Cape Girardeau that lies have to be printed?

Scott City is a great place to live. We have a fine school system, excellent police and fire departments, dedicated public works department and city administration, and some of the best people in the country. I am proud to be the Mayor of Scott City. I will continue to fight for Scott City's interests above all others."

You printed a statement that was untrue and now you refer to that statement as if it were the truth.

LARRY J. FORHAN

Mayor

City of Scott City

Editor's note:

We appreciate Mayor Forhan's willingness to state his viewpoints on this subject, though his assessment of an honest disagreement in approach as a "barrage of lies and personal attacks" is off the mark.

On Jan. 26, the Southeast Missourian published a two-inch public notice concerning a Scott City public hearing on a liquor license request. (In fact, the "emergency" session was predicated on a bar's neglect to properly renew its liquor license; without council action, the establishment would not "be out of business," as the mayor suggests, but would merely have to quit serving liquor until the license renewal is approved.) In subsequent reporting on this meeting, the Southeast Missourian erred in not pointing out the publication of this notice. The notice made no mention of a discussion on annexation or riverboat gambling, though members of the Southeast Missouri Regional Port Authority had been invited to the meeting for such a discussion. While the mayor may disagree, it seems clear the intent that evening was to discuss matters of high public interest outside the public eye.

The Southeast Missourian makes no apologies for its history of supporting civic improvements in Scott City and developments at the Regional Port Authority. Any suggestion that this newspaper is "picking on" Scott City is demagoguery and does not square with the track record of this publication.

We honestly disagree with the port authority board and some in Scott City who feel the port facility is a suitable spot for a riverboat gambling operation. Our arguments in the Feb. 6 editorial reflect that belief. We also argued in that piece that issues such as riverboat gambling and annexation should be given the highest degree of public discussion. In this case, we feel that was not done. We stand behind our opinion.