Linda Smyth vs. Little League

By: Lowell
Published On: 6/6/2007 10:24:08 PM

The Connection Newspapers reports on a dispute between the  Vienna Little League and Linda Smyth regarding a debate that she was invited to, but declined to attend.  Essentially, Linda Smyth is calling the Little League liars.  Check it out (bolding added for emphasis):

Debate organizers - Vienna Little League, Vienna Youth Soccer, Vienna Babe Ruth, Hunter Mill Defense League and North Gallows Road Coalition - said Smyth never answered their invitation for the debate. Russ Ekanger, Vienna Little League treasurer, said he approached Smyth about the event after the first and only debate, held on May 23, but said he received a negative response from her.

E-mails forwarded to The Connection show that Ekanger sent e-mail invitations to Hall and Smyth campaigns on May 18 and May 22 about the second debate. E-mails to the Smyth campaign were sent to the campaign manager Sean Corey. An e-mail sent on May 28 confirmed that the debate would take place at Thoreau on May 31, and stated the hope of the organizers that Smyth would attend. Some of the organizing groups did not advertise the debate with their members because of the fear that an advertisement of a one-candidate debate would seem as an endorsement of that candidate.

"I didn't hear about this debate until Tuesday [May 29]," said Smyth. She said she heard about it from a constituent who called her office for another reason and asked her about the debate in passing. By that time the May 31 date was set, and she had another meeting on her schedule for that night. That meeting, held at Oakton High School, focused on the issue of building sidewalks on Hunter Mill Road. At stake, she said, is $325,000 of county bond money. "They [debate organizers] haven?t sent me anything, and I've had this meeting on the books for a long time," said Smyth.

So, who do you believe?  The Vienna Little League, which says it sent e-mails to the Smyth campaign on May 18 and May 22 (proof provided to the Connection Newspapers) or Linda Smyth, who says they "haven't sent me anything?"  Tough choice, I know.

Comments



Linda Smyth vs the Little League (Serious - 6/6/2007 11:29:28 PM)
I believe the Little League. 

Wasn't Smyth also offered other times?

Smyth says she was attending a meeting that was on the books.  She wanted to meet with these folks to talk about spending $325,000 of bond money. 

How much money is Smyth spending to put in a better walkway and standing areas for people trying to catch the bus?  Say on Gallows or Lee. 

Why did Smyth select the Oakton area?



I believe the Little League (HerbE - 6/7/2007 12:29:43 AM)
Ekanger "said he approached Smyth about the event after the first and only debate, held on May 23, but said he received a negative response from her." It was not a response from her with a question of, "What next forum?"

As for the money for Oakton...well, Oakton received the benefit of the $2M Merrifield park money promised area residents and businesses during the upplanning of Merrifield in 2001; guess Oakton should get lion's share of the Providence sidewalk money to get to this park.  Safe walks to metro stations and schools, obviously, are lower priorities for Smyth. A "Central Park" for Merrifield is not even on the agenda.



Linda Smyth vs Little LEague (Serious - 6/7/2007 7:47:12 AM)
When I see how terrible the walking mud trails are for other folks trying to get to the bus, and then I read that Smyth is dumping over $300,000 for a sidewalk for her wealthier constitutents, I question, where are the ethics?  What can be done about this? 


What can be done? (Lowell - 6/7/2007 7:51:08 AM)
Defeat her on Tuesday.  Tell all your friends, neighbors, colleagues, everyone to vote.  Help Charlie Hall this weekend to get his message of reform and smart growth out there.  Thanks.


Smyth should be honest (Hiker Joe - 6/7/2007 9:52:14 AM)
and say she didn't want to participate. It is disingenuous to hide behind "Gee, I didn't get the invitation."

When it comes to honesty, Charlie Hall wins hands down.



Exactly right. (Lowell - 6/7/2007 9:56:13 AM)
Just like when Smyth told me her schedule was "packed" through the election, and that she didn't have even 5 minutes to post a comment or to call in to Ben's and my Blog Talk Radio show.  Sadly, this is part of a pattern for Linda Smyth of avoiding whatever she doesn't want to do, such as interacting with anyone who might challenge her.  Lame.


Link to the May 18 invitation (Lowell - 6/7/2007 12:20:58 PM)
is right here.  Even if Smyth's campaign staff screwed up in not getting her the TWO emails sent to her offical website address prior to the 5/23 first forum where Russ Ekanger of the VLL approached her, the invite WAS online both at RK and at reformfairfax.com  But of course, it would be far too time consuming in her "packed" schedule to check the blogs once in a while, or have her staff do so... (snark)


Basic Courtesy Lacking (Deborah Reyher - 6/7/2007 9:42:13 PM)
This chronology is very telling:

May 18th -- formal letter goes out to offical campaign contacts for both candidates at website email addresses

May 22nd -- follow up email to Linda, copied to Charlie, noting Charlie's acceptance and asking for Linda's  response

May 23rd -- Russ Ekanger dashes up to the stage just as the debate finishes, and reaches up to shake Linda's hand and ask if she has an answer yet to the invitation.  She does NOT deny knowing about it, but says she is too busy.

May 28th -- final letter encouraging her participation is sent

May 29th -- Linda says she FIRST learns about the forum from a passing remark of a constituent.

May 30th, 31st, June 1, 2,3,4,5,6, and 7:  On NONE of these days does Linda does call or otherwise contact any of the sponsors whom she basically STOOD UP to thank them for the inviation, apologize for her campaign's obvious confusion, express her interest in hearing their concerns, etc.  She remains totally silent, shrugs the sports community's concerns off, and basically accuses the sponsors of being irresponsible or lying about having invited her.

Would any of you behave that way if this was, in fact, such an innocent misunderstanding on her part?  I don't think so, I think we would all be falling all over ourselves trying to apologize and make amends....

Is this a leader anyone wants?  One who lacks even in basic COURTESY?



Smyth lacks truthfulness in addition to courtesy (BettyLou - 6/8/2007 12:05:34 AM)
She doesn't remember voting in those republican primaries. She never got any of the invitations to the second debate. She denied knowing about the rules of the first debate.

Not someone I want representing me.



whatever, she's outa here (superflytnt - 6/8/2007 11:22:10 AM)
She's always been a liar - I met her face-to-face about a development going up and she said she's support my group in fighting it.  At the hearing, she stood up and gave Connelly (another one that should be removed from office) her nod of support.  She's dishonest and frankly, not too bright.  Let's make a change.