Mayor’s e-mail shows he isn’t interested in relationship-building

He had absolutely no wish to facilitate any healthy working relationships and was only interested in his own agenda.

To the Editor,

Re: Mayor’s leaked e-mail spurs calls for privacy breach investigation, Nov. 24.

It was quite obvious after reading this e-mail sent by the mayor, three to four months after this council had been elected, that he had absolutely no wish to facilitate any healthy working relationships and instead, judging by the content of the e-mail, was only interested in his own agenda.

The mayor was asked to give a rundown on each councillor and instead of giving an objective run down, i.e. maybe stating the work they had done in the community, the fact that they were new, or stating their experience on council, previous careers, etc., he chose to write subjective, negative comments about all who disagreed with him. How can any council members work well when this is the view the mayor has of them? We have to remember that these council members were voted in by the people of Nanaimo, some with a huge amount of votes. This is not the behaviour I expect of any professional, least of all, an elected mayor.

Edna ChadwickNanaimo

 

To the Editor,

Re: Mayor’s leaked e-mail spurs calls for privacy breach investigation, Nov. 24.

How does a letter which never should have been leaked in the first place end up on just the right car? Who in city hall is behind this vendetta against the mayor? Hang in there Bill McKay.

Hilda AndrewsNanaimo

 

To the Editor,

Re: Mayor’s leaked e-mail spurs calls for privacy breach investigation, Nov. 24.

In my experience with governments, brown bag mail, i.e. the leaking of official or otherwise ‘secret’ government documents which are felt by some insider(s) to be evidence of illegal, immoral, or simply vexatious behaviour is far from unknown and the role of whistle blowers is often debated, depending on whether one emphasizes the law, common courtesy or gang behaviour. The current situation contains elements of all the above and it remains to be seen how the situation will play out. In the meantime, there will be a great deal of huffing and puffing at all levels as these elements are debated by those involved directly and by the public which they represent.

Still, questions remain: Was there a contract, and if so, who approved it for what work and over what period? Why did the mayor share council’s dirty laundry? And to whose advantage is it that we overlook the work that this council has achieved in favour of the fire in which it has been accomplished?

Ron BolinNanaimo