I take issue with the following portion of Ms. Marchand's statement "following allegations the first vote violated open meetings law." It is worded to sound as though the violation was only "alleged". There was indeed an open meetings violation and they are fully aware of this. The ratepayers were correct in pointing out the illegal meeting. Why does the BCWA "spin" everything? Can't they just call a spade a spade?
The vote for Cameron and Mittleman has been taken and there were not enough votes. Why would the votes not proceed to the next two finalists? Just as they should have done at the last meeting, and WOULD have done if Ms. Mack had done the honorable thing and spoken up and advised the board that four votes was not enough to confirm the appointment. She was there. She is the current legal counsel. Wouldn't she be obligated to advise her client on this issue?
The vote is delayed to February 27th... there may be two or even three new directors at that time. It will be interesting to see who is appointed by Bristol, Barrington and Warren, AND how they vote!
Please explain the inappropriate content below.
