Dear editor:

Lord Mayor Gary Zalepa’s response to the July 30 protest at town hall (“Protesting residents want council to understand the ‘vocal majority,’ ” Aug. 1), is disappointing in both its lack of meaningful content and its cynical attempt to “change the channel.”

Based on the alleged behaviour of “some protesters,” he cast the entire group collectively as villains using intimidation as a tactic.

A few facts follow.

The protesters were isolated by police to be “on the grass.”

People shouted “Shame,” “Liar” and “Resign” from a distance. Councillors were not blocked on their way to the town hall. Protesters who wanted to attend the supposedly public council meeting were prevented from doing so and the viewing of the meeting was blocked by a curtain.

If “some” individuals illegally assaulted councillors, as alleged by the lord mayor and some other councillors, then charges should be laid. The police were on site and available to take action against inappropriate behaviour by any individual protester. No action was apparently warranted.

If shouting “Shame,” “Liar” and “Resign” from a controlled venue at a distance is unacceptable protest in the lord mayor’s view, then what is acceptable? Silent vigil?

If the lord mayor wants to: “work together to foster more respectful dialogue moving forward,” then as a start, perhaps he should refrain from the low road tactic of changing the channel from councillors’ behaviour and broken promises to a debate about unsupported allegations of “unacceptable behaviour” by unidentified protesters in a space controlled by the police.

He is using a cynical and well-known public relations strategy: if you don’t like the subject — “council votes” — change the subject — “protester behaviour.”

While talking at length about the behaviour of “some” unidentified protesters, he said not one word, not one, about the subject at hand which is the implementation, or more accurately, non-implementation, of the town’s official plan.

I encourage the lord mayor and the rest of council to take the high road and respect the official plan.

Or if the majority of council believes changes are needed to the plan to foster “progress” and “tax management,” those changes should go through an appropriate democratic planning process and not be subject to council votes that more and more reduce the confidence of the town’s citizens in the overall process of local government.

The lord mayor is correct in one respect: this situation is deteriorating. However, he is a major contributor to this deterioration.

As council’s leader, it is his narrative to manage. But he appears to have lost control of it.

He will have only a few more chances to change his increasingly confrontational tone that many believe as stems from perceived, if not real, conflicts of interest within council.

The lord mayor and council have the duty, responsibility and opportunity to take the high road and restore confidence in our local government.

They can do so by fostering transparency and accountability and, most importantly, restoring TRUST, which is, after all, the real subject at hand.

Paul Kirkconnell
NOTL