Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1956-08-23

Editor:
would like to draw your at
tention to the front page article
of your August 9 issue which
maligned the Twinbrook swim
ming pool as, among other
things, the problem child" of
the county pools.
/ shall take issue with specific
points of your report later in
this letter but l first want to
lodge a general criticism of your
policy which allows such a mega
tive coverage of a constructive
and outstanding community en-
terprise such as our pool. We
have begun a tremendous project
which will be a source of pride
to all when it is finished. Dur
ing this period of construction,
we are experiencing a good
share of Illustration but we are
making steady Roadway. We are
fortnight in attitude. I person
ally resent any public display of
half truths designed to question
our integrity.
We submitted our application
for the usual permit, in the
usual manner, at the usual time;
lie, before the swimming season
opened, and explained our handi-
caps to r. w. Koch, the county
sanitarian. We received his
guarded blessing" contingent
upon our going ahead with COM
pletion of basic facilities. Since
then the pool facilities have been
inspected regularly and our water
purity has been consistently
good. There have been several
criticisms and suggestions by the
sanitarian and his remarks are
always of concern to the manage.
ment and corporation and extra
effort has been applied to those
projects.
Now to a few particular points.
Number one, the county SAM
tartan is not a policeman who
orders pools what to do. He is
an advisor and holds the power
of failing to approve" How.
ever, this does not lessen our de-
sire to comply. We do not de-
sire, nor will we brook, any
compromise with health and
safety.
l should like to particularly
point out that all quotations re-
garding our pool managers COM
fments were published without
permission and were overheard
from a casual, friendly converse.
ton between the manager and
Mr.. Koch.
The facts are as follows: Dur
ing the week prior to August 9.
Mr.. Koch came to our pool for a
routine inspection. He had a man
with him whom he casually in.
troduced to our manager as Mr..
Nessen from the Sentinel" No
comment was made that Mr..
Nessen was preparing an article.
sOur manager regarded him as a
person waiting for Mr.. Koch to
finish a friendly private CONVEX
sation. Our manager soon no
ticed that Mr.. Nessen was caves.
dropping and writing on a pad.
He asked If he was recording
the conversation, and added that
he was not to be quoted. Mr..
Nessen said he was "just max.
ing some notes" Our manager
had no other direct conversation
with Mr.. Nessen.
Such behavior on the part of a
reporter is no less than uncouth
If not worse. The statement
subscribed to Mr. Procopio that
1.-THE official myself did not
call (Mr. KOCH because we
wanted to see what he would
do" is completely false. Our op
Grating contract with Aquatic
Enterprises Unlimited actually
calls for such matters to be
handled through their office ant
1t was an oversight that Mr.
Koch failed to get a reply.
AS to Mr.. Koch's disgust.
this is obviously personal ref
erence which is uncalled for anc
entirely misleading.
Our well has been giving tech
nical trouble (now corrected
which effects our makeup sup