Penticton Western News letters to the editor.

Letter: Parks plan anomalies

Many citizens find Draft No.2 of the Penticton Parks and Recreation Master Plan to be slanted

Parks plan anomalies

With all the buzz about status of parks in our city, there seems to be some anomalies at Parks and Recreation Master Plan Committee.

One only has to read the minutes of the agenda of the March 6, 2017. At the very bottom where the recording secretary signs off on the minutes is a statement that reads “certified correct.” This means that these minutes are grammatically correct and devoid of such things as spelling errors and syntax errors. I submit to you that such is not the case with these minutes as posted on the city site. There are two flagrant grammatical errors centering around the word “be.” In two sentences, the word “be” has been omitted. So much for “certified correct.” There is no excuse for this — period.

Also, there is a reference in one of the paragraphs regarding the word “encumber.” At no time at that meeting was this the word under discussion. The word should have been “unencumbered.” The two are direct antitheses of one another. The word that should be applied to the all park situation is “unencumbered.” It gives the impression that the process is somewhat flawed when they, themselves cannot agree on terminology.

I find it ironic that we, the taxpayers, have been invited to check agendas and minutes on a City of Penticton website as they will be posted there. There must have been a meeting in April and yet there are no minutes nor is there an agenda posted. I believe that there is a definite time frame whereby minutes need to be available to the public. What clock is COP running on? This must be a slight oversight or it suggests that there may be something that COP doesn’t want us to know. Is Draft No.2 that flawed that it has to be secretive? It seems that dereliction of duty might be the order of the day. Certify correct that.

Many citizens find Draft No.2 Parks and Recreation Master Plan to be slanted; poorly worded and generally unacceptable. If COP and the committee believe that their plan is so viable and sound, why not put it to the test of a referendum. After all, if something is as good as COP believes it to be, what is there to lose?

Ron Barillaro