Dear editor:
I read with interest the articles and letters dealing with councillor Morgan Nagel’s attempts to force the Town of Cochrane council to reconsider the vote on the pool/curling facility by means of a petition to force a plebiscite on the issue.
It seems to me that Coun. Nagel has not read nor understood the procedural bylaw governing town council. He has, by reports in the paper, faithfully and forcefully put forward his opposition to the borrowing of money to undertake this project. That is his obligation as a councillor.
However, once council has debated and voted on the issue, unless there is significant change or new information, the matter is settled. One councillor is out of order to try and force the matter back on the agenda without this new information. In addition, according to council’s own procedural bylaw, which uses Robert’s Rules of Order, the matter could only be reintroduced by a member of council who voted on the winning side.
The issue of the pool/curling project was the centre of the municipal election last fall. At that time, each of the candidates for mayor and council tried to clearly state their position on the project and the costs.
As I recall from the forum and the articles in the papers, most of the councillors who were successful as well as the mayor clearly were supportive of proceeding. The exception was Coun. Nagel, who put forth a platform of basically not spending any money on almost anything. The voters elected a mayor and the majority of council who clearly stated their positions. This was a clear public endorsement of the project.
Coun. Nagel, by his actions, is clearly trying to inflame the public against council, which does not bode well for future deliberations. In all matters the council will face and decide upon there will be those in the public who will be vehemently opposed to the action taken by council and also many who will be strongly in favor of the action. I note from the signatures on some of the letters that the usual opponents of change are front and center. Such is the nature of public policy.
Coun. Nagel compares expenditures on the pool/curling facility as money not being available to solve the traffic issues in the town of Cochrane. This is comparing apples to tuna. The issues of traffic in Cochrane lie with the provincial government. For Coun. Nagel to insinuate that the traffic solutions are solvable by the town shows his misunderstanding of the level of control the municipality has over highways.
For the record, I am personally in favor of the pool/curling facility for the future of our community, but I do applaud council for having had an open and honest debate on the issue.
Bruce Pettigrew
