"There was no violation." There WAS no violation," "There was NO violation." "We went out there, and there was no violation." "We have no case file on this because there was no violation."
Talking about Michael Fennell's assertion that Scott Riley is guilty of cutting down trees over a certain diameter, that's the gist of a string of emails regarding Scott Riley's proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) in Manila - emails that reveal what looks like an increasingly exasperated staff responding to relentless pressure from Michael Fennell through County Supervisor John Woolley, asking that history be rewritten and a case file opened now.
Then, someone from Fennell's camp apparently brings in "new" photos, purporting to show concretely that Riley cut down a tree (or 8 as the case may be), and not just any tree, but one that was "oversize."
How many years ago was this now? And what do you go on - the official record, set at the time, that there was no violation - or this newly revisited "case." And, irregardless, what bearing does this really have on the proposed project?
These emails come as a result of Riley's public records act request for Woolley's correspondence relating to his project.
There's more, though - in one email to a Lumberjack reporter Woolley explains why he might have to recuse himself from voting on the project if he answers her questions...
Looks like, at the very least, he will have to recuse himself anyway, since another one has Woolley thanking Fennell for keeping him in the loop but admonishing him "...Please don't let others know I have contacted you. I have some ideas for getting some review of this...."