Editor:
With respect to a recent article in your paper regarding the claimed non-pecuniary conflict I may have relating to a biosolids plant in East Porpoise Bay, some elaboration is in order.
Firstly, I felt the discussion of the matter never should have been done behind closed doors; I am not an employee of the District, therefore, it did not fall under the category of "personnel."
Secondly, we could get a legal opinion on almost every matter where a member of council has property in proximity to an infrastructure "improvement" (e.g., the current mayor's residence very near the highway widening project in Davis Bay). Could it be argued that the decision to go ahead with that project will have some impact, good or bad, on his residence? Absolutely. Should he have voted? That was up to him.
Thirdly, it is always up to the individual member of council to decide and or declare if he or she is in some possible conflict, not the rest of council. Should Coun. Allan be voting on new developments? He's a professional appraiser whose business could be affected by new construction. But he weighs those votes very carefully, as will I.
Lastly, the letter I wanted released from in-camera contains a paragraph that implies my quality of life could be affected by smell, noise, traffic, etc., something the public has been assured, until now, would not be an issue. If it will affect my property, it will affect dozens of others in the area. Rushed decisions are usually bad decisions. This is a huge issue and all sides should be considered before a final decision is made that could possibly create a new mess. If the Ebbtide plant was a mistake, what have we learned?
Keith Thirkell, councillor
District of Sechelt
