LETTER: Why were discussions in-camera?

An advisory committee is not a governance model ... it does not govern, it simply advises.

RE: Letter by Danny Plecas (July 17 edition)

Danny, you’ve confirmed what we at the MHA have maintained all along. While the mayor has stated numerous times that the district is developing “a new governance model” for the park, this is simply a takeover, or as you state, “…the district will incorporate operations within the parks department.”

An advisory committee is not a governance model … it does not govern, it simply advises.

So this is political double-speak.

If there is “nothing to hide,” then why have all proceedings and discussions been held in-camera?

Indeed, we are well aware of the district’s plans and completely clear with your intentions. Our grievance comes from the fact that all these plans were made without any discussion or consultation with the MHA at all.

The vast majority of questions of which we have subsequently become aware have very solid rationales and answers.

Had these been the subject of discussions prior to a fait accompli decision being announced, we could’ve been moving forward together in a different direction.

Instead, within a month of taking office, this council gave us notice that our long-standing management of the park was not being renewed. No discussion, no warning, no consultation, no questions… simply a decision made behind closed doors, all of a rush.

This is not a heartening way to commence a four-year tenure. Shooting first and asking questions afterwards has never been a hallmark of democracy.

 

Brian Antonson

Mission