Editor:
Re: City of White Rock targets ‘abusive’ residents, Jan. 27.
Judging from statements White Rock Mayor Wayne Baldwin made to Peace Arch News (Mayor douses water critics, Dec. 24), and his labelling of residents who challenged him as “steadfastly opposed to council on just about every issue,” the mayor was clearly not willing to revisit the decision to use chloramine in the water supply.
So, on Jan. 6, I sent an email to the six councillors containing a proposed resolution and a plea for their support against him to prevent the use of chloramine in White Rock.It contained 19 points on the adverse effects of chloramine on health, infrastructure and the environment. It noted that cities switching back to chlorine had resolved the problems. These points were based on findings by chemists, doctors, oncologists, immune specialists, centres for disease control, metallurgists, research laboratories, etc.
On Jan. 7, I received an abusive email from Baldwin from his city account. This contained a puerile diatribe containing false assertions, as well as egregious accusations.
Amongst the litany of things – too many to repeat here – he told me I had been drinking chloraminated water because I had lived in Ottawa. Well, actually, Mr. Mayor, we lived in a rural area with our own well.
At another point, after questioning why he would foist a public health hazard on the city, he said: “Are you thinking maybe I own stock in an ammonium plant somewhere? What absolute stupidity and hogwash!”
What kind of man makes up such ridiculous accusations to use as the basis for a personal attack?
Another twisted piece of logic is that chloramine had been used for years, so it must be safe. Remember asbestos, lead and tobacco?
Baldwin’s behaviour has brought dishonour to the office of mayor.
Keith Knightson, White Rock
• • •
Re: Silencing critics, Feb. 3 editorial.
The mayor and city councillors talk about abusive comments and about being harassed. Strange how they provide no evidence.
There are plenty of examples of abusive comments and acts of intimidation to choose from.
I recall an incident on Sept. 28, in which someone was threatened with being removed from council chambers by the RCMP (Mayor calls in police to eject former councillor, Sept. 30). That was the evening when the mayor interrupted Margaret Woods as she tried to speak at the public hearing. The mayor demanded that Woods apologize for stating her opinion, then that she leave. When she refused, the mayor called the RCMP to have her forcibly removed. Fortunately, the constables understand law and, after discussion with the mayor, left without incident.
But here is the point: the mayor’s actions were an abuse of power. His actions were threatening, and Woods and resident Maggie Bernet were both harassed and intimidated.
The mayor does not have the right to interrupt citizens during a hearing. Council is there to listen, not bully and intimidate. They are not supposed to prevent people from speaking. In case there is doubt, here are the words read out before every public hearing: “The main function of council members this evening is to listen to the views of the public… No one will be, or should feel, discouraged or prevented from making their views heard.”
Great words, spoken at every public hearing, but seldom followed now.
I know that no member of the public felt encouraged to speak again that night. We wanted to, but many of us felt threatened and intimidated.
Makes me think about Coun. Helen Fathers’ comment that rules of decorum should apply to all, including the mayor. Baldwin called her comments “ludicrous”. Perhaps they aren’t so ludicrous after all?
Scott Kristjanson, White Rock