On Sep 22, 2012, at 10:37 AM, "Monroe, Nate" <nmonroe@gannett.

com> wrote: ______, I will simply state again that nothing in Maren's blog contradicts what we reported. He tells her in the email that he has no "written" opinion to give her -- it requires a leap in logic to then assume we were lied to. His email doesnt say that what has been reported is inaccurate, and in fact I have independent corroboration that what we've reported is accurate. This is a semantics game that manages to avoid the actual issue at hand, which is the scope of Hayward's veto power. Again, I'm confident that what we reported reflects Messer's position, which will be made even clearer when he issues a written opinion next week.

From: "Monroe, Nate" <nmonroe@gannett.com> To: Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 4:56 PM Subject: RE: Sonya, Thanks for the message. It appears that Councilwoman Maren DeWeese is addressing the question of whether or not Jim Messer has "issued" or "written" some kind of legal opinion, which he apparently has not, and who talked to who in City Hall. The only thing the paper has so far reported is what his position is on the veto question: That it had the effect of reversing the amendment. Nothing in Maren's blog -- and no information I've yet received -- contradicts what we reported or what Derek relayed to me in terms of what Jim's opinion on the issue is. We issue corrections or clarifications to address errors in reporting, which we have not done in this case because there is (so far) nothing to correct. As I understand it, however, Jim is working on issuing some sort of written opinion. I expect we'll see it soon. Nate