Dear editor:

On Feb. 14, the NOTL Residents Association published a response on their website to Mr. Ruller’s Feb. 5 statements. What a shockingly flaccid response.

It’s not only Mr. Ruller out there peddling these ideas. Mr. Ruller wouldn’t have issued this kind of statement on his own without the prior approval of the mayor and possibly town council (the municipality).

The NOTLRA has not noticeably challenged and disagreed with the municipality’s statements.

By not criticizing, challenging or disagreeing with Mr. Ruller’s statement, the NOTLRA is tacitly agreeing with Mr. Ruller et al. that the media has published opinions that encourage abuse/the erosion of public trust/well-being/professional reputation/workplace morale. This is an unacceptable position.

It appears that the NOTLRA wants to control narratives/opinions publicized in the public domain fearing they might potentially offend town council and individuals within town staff that Mr. Ruller identifies as “not public or decision-makers.” 

Realistically, town staff became public figures through the town’s own public announcements, and became part of the decision-making process because of the overwhelming reliance town council has on town staff’s analysis and recommendations. To suggest otherwise is nonsense.

Let’s not forget that we residents paid for all the information town council/staff have in their possession. In a democratic transparent world, that information should be available for public scrutiny without having to go through the financially punitive Freedom of Information.

What’s not perfect in this world is that information seems to be increasingly restrictive and the NOTLRA feels comfortable with this approach. Now you have to pay twice to receive anything.

The NOTLRA is unfortunately looking like a mirror image of the existing municipal government that they are trying to replace with their own candidates. I don’t think we want an organization that proposes to advocate for candidates that mimic the existing mayor/town council’s views, do we?

It’s hypocritical on the one hand for the NOTLRA to state it advocates for residents, when on the other hand, the NOTLRA isn’t prepared to defend freedom of the press, access to what should be public documents, unwarranted accusations, etc.

One would expect the NOTLRA website, including media outlets, to be effusive with how it is advocating resident’s views and expectations, but it’s hard to identify any advocacy.

A member of the NOTLRA can’t even express their views, or make contributing comments on the NOTLRA website.

It’s a good way for the NOTLRA to control workloads true, but also to eliminate free untoward questions/commentary, the exchange of ideas, and to manage what strategic information the NOTLRA has behind the curtain that may be inadvertently divulged.

The NOTLRA is running a copy-and-paste website. There are numerous links to the town, the province, financial archives, policies, etc., but where is the NOTLRA’s advocacy page where it can identify what specific issues they have been advocating for to further the betterment of the community?

There doesn’t seem to be any — just position papers. What a disappointment.

The NOTLRA is organized into functionality groups as opposed to geographic groups representing each of the villages. It’s a strategy to aggregate/consolidate the collective thoughts and ideas of contributors, to form a library of the numerical number of voters linked to the politically sensitive topics. Reference points to identify where to spend resources for the upcoming electoral campaign.

However, creating groups within geographical areas stocked with individuals knowledgeable about their specific geographic issues would make more sense.

How is someone from Old Town going to be up to date on Glendale or St. Davids issues that have been percolating for years, or vice versa? They’re not going to be.

From that perspective, the NOTLRA is malfunctioning and will continue to be organizationally challenged. 

I feel that the NOTLRA believes they do not have to prove itself and its choice of candidates in the upcoming municipal election. A considerable amount of voter distaste of the existing town council et al. is already in play. 

That will ensure a turnover of the mayor/councillors in the NOTLRA’s favor. So, why challenge the existing municipal authorities, create controversy, and alienate some potential electoral fence-sitters? A vote against the existing town council rather than a vote for a new candidate.

Being conciliatory with the municipality hasn’t historically proven productive as the disbanded urban design committee found out when their views were not in sync with members of town council.

Peter Neame, who sits as a director of the NOTLRA, would surely have brought the rest of the executives of the NOTLRA up to speed on the sordid theatrics there. A lesson not learned.

Sure, there are forgivable things the NOTLRA might do better, but I would draw the line when the NOTLRA doesn’t defend freedom of the press, transparency, the rights of NOTL residents and the values of the community.

How can I now trust NOTLRA’s candidates being the “right/suitable” ones for the community? Mr. Hummel foreshadowed that cautionary perspective in one of his comments in The Lake Report.

Respect should be reciprocal. If town council wants respect, they should provide the same to the media and the people that elected them. It’s a two-way street. The municipality works for us, not for anyone else.

Similarly, if the NOTLRA wants to be an organization geared for change and make recommendations for community focused candidates in the next municipal elections, it needs to prove themselves, vigorously advocate and show us they deserve our support.

They need to work for our votes, not become subservient to the existing municipal government.

Gienek Ksiazkiewicz
St. Davids