Timing of criticism of director was poor politics, says reader

Former director was critiqued without being allowed opportunity for rebuttal

To the Editor:

I am writing this for a couple of reasons. First and most, I wrote a letter to the editor that was cut in half, (the most important things were left out, in my opinion) as the paper did not want to expose themselves, I was told, to possible legal issues. I wrote about an incident that happened at the Hedley Museum, and there was plenty of time for the other party to give her story, if she had been asked by the paper, but no, no one was asked.

Then the Wednesday before election day a letter to the editor appears from Angelique Wood, who quotes me saying that she has never been to a board or committee meeting or any other RDOS meetings. Now she says she has, I asked Elef Christensen if she did, he told me as far as he knew never attended any meetings that includes Similkameen water studies, except the last board meeting before the election, where she arrived approximately three hours into that day’s meetings, and stayed for less than two hours. At that meeting she wrote in her letter to the editor, she saw Mr. Christensen in a dead sleep for more than an hour, this can’t be true as I checked this out. Elef Christensen admitted he was nodding his head a few times, just like other directors have done. I was told he had recently been diagnosed with narcolepsy and when taking his medicine he experiences fatigue and starts nodding his head, now sitting beside the recording secretary there is no way one could fall asleep even for 10 seconds without her kicking or pinching you. This letter from Angelique Wood to the editor should, I believe, have been treated the same way as mine. In this case there was no chance for Elef Christensen to answer those serious accusations, he possibly lost a lot of votes because of this, and he told me he was never contacted by the editor about this.

It looks to me that my letter and Angelique Woods letter would carry the same liability to the paper.

You, the readers, be the judge.

Don Armstrong, Hedley

 

 

 

Editor’s note: The editor was also present at the meeting referred to by Mr. Armstrong where Ms. Wood made her observations.