Editor:
I was somewhat curious why Mr. Gleeson’s editorial elicited the rather lengthy sermon delivered up by our mayor on Feb. 18 (“Preposterous charges” by Bruce Milne, Letters). So I revisited the Feb. 12 editorial, and found it to be rational and thought provoking – good things, I think, in an editorial.
I voted for six of the seven current members of council because I hoped the bias I thought they advocated for would, in fact, become practice at our city hall. The bias I refer to is a promise to follow open and transparent processes while engaging the community for feedback. The mayor says council sat around the table, had a good discussion and used their bias (if there was bias) to make an important community decision. I don’t think this is consistent with what was promised during elections.
What is missing is the process which would have let respondents convince council that their services were the best for our community. That process would have measured respondent services, costs and any other criteria council felt were important. This bias is open and measurable and sends a clear message to the public and to all potential respondents: Sechelt is interested in doing business and doing it in a right way.
I hope council rethinks its acquisition processes. Sticking with a service provider because you are “happy” with them is no substitute for following proper generally accepted acquisition processes and would have avoided the unnecessary negativity that has entered into the current decision.
John France, Sechelt
