Meredith Mess-up
We expect fireworks on July 1, Canada Day, and July 4, U.S. Independence Day, but Chelsea saw the fireworks on July 2, at the Chelsea Council meeting. The seats were all taken and the lineup to sign up to ask a question went out of the room and into the hallway. People were upset about two matters—the decision on the public access points on the Gatineau River and the article in Le Droit about the Meredith Centre. But, as the spiritual would have it, “Shall we gather at the river?”
Chelsea is providing three access points, one for swimmers and two for non-motorized boats. Resident Danielle Binette spoke against the limitations on the kinds of access. As a woman in her 80s, she can no longer swim in the river, nor can she paddle. If she is to have access, it will need to be motorized. She also pointed out that Indigenous fishers used motorized boats. Her remarks were greeted with heavy applause, indicating that her position was widely shared. Did Council give adequate consideration to motorized access?
The other matter was an interview that Mayor Pierre Guénard gave to Le Droit reporter Megan Rochette. There are two aspects to concern about the article. First, was the interview appropriate? Then, what the mayor had to say about the report by the Commission municipale du Québec.
On the first aspect, Councillor Enrico Valente pointed out that the report to members of Council came with an embargo on release prior to the Council meeting. Yet, disclosure was made both by the mayor and by the director general. Both should have been constrained by the embargo.
The next issue was the reaction to the Commission. At the meeting, Peter Sudermann, treasurer and past president of the Foundation, complained that the mayor chose to use the report as a weapon to attack the Foundation. Since the report raised concerns about the agreements reached, the problem is in the laps of both parties. Attacking the Foundation is an inappropriate response to the situation.
Councillor Kimberly Chan spoke in defense of staff. She cautioned about attacking staff. She said that they work hard and could go elsewhere, with better pay. Her argument is based on an unstated assumption that staff act impartially and professionally. The behavior of Director General Sheena Ngalle Miano calls the assumption into question. She took part in an interview with the reporter, contrary to the embargo. And she falsely claimed that no documents had been exchanged between police and Chelsea legal services on the insults bylaw.
