Mr. Sean Campbell writes, “At last City Council meeting Councillor Davis commented on the vitriolic and personal attacks that our municipal leaders occasionally receive by mail”. This is a disturbing statement that requires substantiation. It is rather sad to see community leaders feeling and fearing some form of persecution. The supporting information Mr. Campbell provides is an angry rant by ‘Anachore’ sent to the Townsman website. Unfortunately, by reprinting it Mr. Campbell provides more attention and press than this comment and its’ author deserves.
Mr. Campbell is misinformed when he states that CLCS made an assumption two letters, (from CLCS and Jenny Humphrey) published on this blog, were the target of Councilor Davis’ disapproving comments. Mr. Davis’s comments were indeed directed at these two letters plus two others (from Gene McDonald and the Arts Council) in response to the Five Year Financial Plan. Mr. Davis quoted from them, at the council meeting. Further, we confirmed that fact with Mr. Davis right after the meeting although he was unable to show us the specific disrespectful comments he felt were directed at him or Council.
We appreciate that Mr. Campbell stated that the letters he reviewed were well written and respectful. It is important to read all public correspondence before making statements based on a single web comment or on hearsay. All council correspondence is included in council packages and is available through the City. We have read all four letters providing comment on the city’s five-year financial plan and all are respectful.
We certainly agree with Mr. Campbell in his concern over comments such as the one he quotes and agree our community would be a much less pleasant place to be without the support and volunteerism from the business community. Let us also remember volunteers come from a variety of backgrounds and all walks of life and they all need to be valued and respected for the work they do to make Cranbrook a better place to live.
With due respect to the writer of this comment, I have to say that if I was misinformed, it was the result of a previous post on this blog. In March, a comment on this site stated: "This letter is published with the permission of Jenny Humphrey. On Tuesday March 22nd we made comment on the Round Table Comments from one member of Council regarding input to the City's Five Year Financial Plan. This is one of the letters we assume (it was difficult to recognise the letters from what was said about them but we do know four letters were referenced and this is one of the four)."
ReplyDeleteMy comment on the assumption was a direct inference from this statement, which clearly said "we assume", in one of this blog's March posts.
It is unfortunate that you have missed my real point that under the shade of anonymity, many people feel free to make statements, including personal attacks and threats, that they would not otherwise make. It is not persecution or fear that lead me to express outrage but the fact that more people do not speak out against such abuse. The comment above seems to do the same, minimizing the threat that these comments have on democracy and advocacy. To say that abusive comments are not worth attention is to in an indirect way condone them. The executive of the CLC should worry less about defending against a perceived attack against them, which was not intended, an acknowledge the real threat against us all.
Sean Campbell
Thanks Sean - point taken!
ReplyDeleteJenny Humphrey
The word 'livable' is spelled correctly according to the Canadian Oxford dictionary.
ReplyDeleteSharon