Letter to the editor 2, Nov. 23, 2017
10 Points to Ponder……
In last week’s Your Local Journal Letters to the Editor, an ‘expert’ provided his opinions which lead me to ponder some questions…
1. Why does the expert believe the St. Lazare Mayor’s statement about ‘hurtful’ things being said in the last election, and wanting to turn the page and move on is not a ‘proper response?’ In fact it was the only proper response of someone who wants to bring people together and lead a citizen-focused council with integrity and respect.
2. Why would the expert emphasize the fact that ‘only 37% of 37% of the electorate’ voted for him as being an issue? I understand it’s an attempt to say 63% didn’t vote for him; however we don’t base our elections on who the electorate ‘didn’t vote for.’
3. Why would the mayor saying we must move beyond the ‘hurtful’ comments lead to the conclusion that he is immature and unable to stand up to scrutiny? If he wasn’t interested in being scrutinized, I would assume he wouldn’t have run for office three times.
4. Why would the expert assume the mayor was expecting other candidates to follow his lead and not criticize him as he did not criticize others? Mr. Grimaudo fully expected to be criticized; however he was disappointed with the disinformation, mudslinging and personal attacks from some candidates.
5. Why is it that those who provided a response to a barrage of disinformation on social media by many, and never disparaged anyone personally, are disparaged now by the expert calling them ‘surrogates,’ and accusing them of making disparaging comments, without being ‘specific.’ Why are only the ‘anti-mayor’ surrogates allowed to voice their opinions?
6. Why does the expert feel he has the expertise to the state the mayor has been ‘found wanting’ with respect to giving citizens the right to examine his stewardship? It cannot be because 63% didn’t vote for him, because we know that 67% didn’t want Mme. Jolicoeur, and 72% didn’t want M. Lambert’s ‘stewardship’ either.
7. Why does the expert feel he can state ‘most of us’ thought the decision to build ‘extravagant’ buildings was taken without ‘significant community input?’ That means he would have to ignore the fact that there were consultations on all aspects of the buildings and the ultimate consultation that the councillors, elected by the community, voted for those buildings.
8. Why does the expert state, ‘you have won the election,’ yet all his points make it sound as though he thinks the mayor lost, or that ‘most of us’ didn’t want him? (Again even more voters ‘didn’t want’ either of the other two options).
9. Why does the expert feel the mayor’s statement of wanting to move on and work together is a ‘whine,’ when, in fact, it is quite conciliatory? To me it’s the expert’s opinion that sounds more like ‘whining.’
10. I believe an expert opinion should be fair and unbiased, and should also be critical, but shouldn’t be condescending.
Hopefully, these points will some give open-minded people something to ponder.
Cosimo La Rosa Huissier de Justice