While I understand your paper has time and space considerations, I can't help but believe the delay and subsequent omissions were not by accident nor were they due to time or space constraints. Four people visited the Oct. 6, 2009, Pacific Board of Aldermen meeting to express their displeasure over the overcharging and harassment levied against them by the city because they elected to use Pacific city cemeteries for the burial of their loved ones.

No mention was made in your paper's article about the four visitors. The article made it seem as if I was the only visitor to the meeting and I was there only to continue my already noted complaints against the board and the mayor. The omission was an insult to unbiased journalism and us. The article continued the bias and insult by the inclusion of comments by the mayor that did not occur during the meeting.

During that meeting the mayor specifically indicated and was quoted as saying he would not answer any questions due to ongoing litigation, yet your paper quoted his after-meeting comments. I absolutely understand that following up on an article is a standard in journalism and I feel all parties should be given the opportunity to respond. None of the four visitors to the meeting was given the opportunity the mayor was given. Three of the four people who visited the meeting were completely ignored, treated as if they were not there and their complaints were not valid.

The father of a soldier who served his country in the war in Iraq wanted to know why his son's funeral procession was stopped without cause. Your paper ignored his comments to the board, only mentioning the incident by saying measures were in place to ensure it would not happen again. That statement must have been gleaned from the after-hours meeting between your reporter and the mayor.

No apology was offered during the meeting nor was any reason for this atrocity offered by the mayor. Your paper ignored the existence of a gentleman who was overcharged for three family members' grave openings and charged for graves their family already owned. Your paper ignored the existence of a lady who was denied information on her great-grandmother's grave location while her cousin was here from England doing family genealogy. The cousin returned to England without the information she had requested. That (grave) information was readily available in the city clerk's office, but was denied to the family even after several verbal and written requests were made to the city administrator, Harold Selby.

Your paper covered these incidents as if I was the only person at the meeting voicing complaints. I take exception to this type of biased journalism just as much as I take exception to the city's attempts to intimidate citizens and me by stopping funeral processions without authority, denying the public access to public information and blatant (alleged) lying and stealing from the public.

I do, however, agree with one comment the mayor made in his after-hours meeting with your reporter. We will all live and abide by the court's decision.