 | ||
| ||
 |
|
|
|
|
Home->Kincardine |
||
|
|
Jim Cameron’s letter in the Independent last week unfortunately did not contribute much to the debate for openness. It would be better he said who on the committee were for or against saving the pavilion in the first place and why. It would help the debate to know why council wanted the pavilion moved and whether those reasons still exist. I am aware of the earlier discussions about the pavilion. If the Economic Development Committee, consisting in part several members of council, long deliberated over the pavilion, why did it not test for termites before entering into discussion to hand over the pavilion to a volunteer group? Why was initial testing and continued monitoring not done though we live in a known termite hot spot? If council says initial assessment and continued testing was not done, I take back any suggestion that council misled the public. Unbelievable as it seemed to me at the time, it might well have been ignorance -- ignorance of the termite threat and ignorance of the need to test and treat a public asset. Or was it negligence? It was not an act of God. Of course there are legitimate differences of opinion whether the pavilion should be restored or pulled down. That is a given. That is precisely the point of open discussion and appropriate process. That is all I ever want: whether it regards the BMTS governance, the medical centre, the Reunion Beach, or any other important issue in the municipality. This year, when I have had occasion to ask Maureen Couture or Gord Campbell a question there was no equivocation in their answers. Sandy Donald has seen to it that I received requested information and even though we do not always see eye to eye he does not feel the sky will fall if information is shared. To whom is it “offensive” to mention the Walkerton tragedy? Politicians and citizens appointed to committees should never forget Walkerton. It should be a constant reminder of what can happen when governance of a municipality is given over to nepotism and an “old boys” climate. To forget would indeed be “offensive.” In closing, when the defence tells the court that the young man is hard working, it normally indicates a dearth of evidence to prove innocence. Mr. Cameron’s description of his associates as “hard working” adds nothing to the debate. For my part, I prefer good work over hard work
|
