Editor:
Essentially, in Gibsons, the last election was all about The George and the future benefits for the community, as indicated by Coast Reporter’s coverage of the Oct. 30, 2014 all-candidates meeting: “The 10 municipal candidates in Gibsons staked out their positions on the height of the George Hotel and Residences before an overflow crowd …” Coun. SanJenko acknowledged it was the number one question people asked about at the door and dominated the meeting.
Voter participation in the 2014 election was unprecedented – the ninth highest turnout in the province – because the issue of The George galvanized the electorate.
Nine months later, it is still “all about The George” and now Coun. White’s recent decision to recuse himself from further discussion is not sitting well. Does he not realize the importance of this project to the residents of this community? Does he not realize his decision to walk away is seen by former supporters as a betrayal? As Gibsons resident Sandy Russell stated at the July 7 council meeting, “When Coun. White came to my house to ask for my vote, I specifically asked him if he supported the George. He said yes.”
In a campaign, when you make a promise, you keep your promise. To do otherwise shows a lack of personal integrity. Voters commit to a candidate for their promises, and for their perceived stand on matters important to them.
Presumably Coun. White was made aware of what constituted “conflict of interest” at the “governance orientation” session of Dec. 18, at law firm Young, Anderson’s mid-January Government Leadership Academy, and at the Feb. 23 SCRD legal session with lawyers from Murdy McAllister who were on hand to answer questions. That it took Coun. White four months to digest the information and come to his conclusion indicates he is either a very slow study, or his judgment is suspect.
John Reynolds, Gibsons
