DOES SEMANTICS & DIALOGUE TRUMP HONESTY & FORTHRIGHTNESS?

Last night's public CPAC (Chemtura Public Advisory Committee) meeting was both elevating and unnerving. Instead of yours truly having to be the only critic present, those duties were ably shared with each and every CPAC member present. In fact I would go so far as to suggest that even Pat Mclean, present for only the second time in two years and Susan Bryant, present probably for only the third or fourth time, both asked some excellent questions in regards to the partial Dioxin removal planned for GP1 & 2. The unnerving part was one of the slickest presentations I've seen in a while, by the vice-president of the Chemical Industry Assocn of Canada (CIAC). This gentleman was affable, well spoken and clearly enjoyed talking about *Responsible Care. He was almost impossible to pin down on the difficult questions that CPAC politely peppered him with. Note I say almost.

In the world of honest persons, a direct answer to a direct question is considered polite. Now if the question is either rude or irrelevant or personal, then an honest person does not engage in a five minute, circuitous dialogue, essentially saying nothing. They bluntly say either no comment or none of your business. They don't bullshit. Last night CPAC members Dan, Vivienne, David and Sebastian asked relevant, pertinent questions of both Mr. Masterson of the CIAC and of Chemtura staff (Josef, Dwight & Jeff). The bulk of these questions dealt with ethics, honesty, forthrightness and how they fit into the *Responsible Care mold. CPAC wanted to know where the CIAC stood on giving *Responsible Care verifcation to a company (Chemtura) who treated their stakeholders dishonestly and disrespectfully. CPAC were searching for straight answers to straight questions and it was nothing but stickhandling, avoidance, smooth talking, deflection and word games in response.

Mr. Masterson reminded me of a flyweight boxer. He danced, spun, twisted and avoided all direct questions. He was far better at it then Josef, Dwight and Jeff who whined about either hypothetical questions or who went off on their own self made tangents such as why should we pay for three, four or five different opinions when we've already paid for Conestoga Rovers? Sebastian bluntly brought that back to earth by stating that CPAC wanted ONE peer review for a total of TWO opinions, not three, four or five. Chemtura danced forever around the makeup of the *Responsible Care verification team at Chemtura. Finally after multiple questions from numerous CPAC members they finally, grudgingly admitted that yes they do appoint local groups to provide them with verification members.

Similarily Mr. Masterson absolutely would not agree that CIAC verification would be viewed by the community as some sort of an endorsement for Chemtura's behaviour and cleanup. Again playing word games and using semantics he avoided being pinned down even by the obvious. Chemtura desperately want this CIAC verification to shore up their plunging public appearance. Whether from CPAC's Resolution of last spring criticizing their alleged cleanup or the ever growing understanding that their partners CRA and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment are promoting their interests, not the publics', their public image is in freefall.

The gloves came off when CPAC members VIV and Dr. Dan (Chair) confronted Chemtura regarding their public, verbal assault upon Dr. Dan at Woolwich Council prior to Christmas. Dwight attempted to bafflegab with comments about how they were merely criticizing Dan's going public with information they considered private. Yours truly joined the fray as I had been present at that Council meeting. Dwight was set straight and I made it very clear to Mr. Masterson of the CIAC that personal, inaccurate public attacks of the public advisory chair grossly violated the ethics of *Responsible Care. Once again he was carefully non-committal.

Richard Clausi of the SWAT sub-committee had participated regarding the makeup of Chemtura's verifcation team and as well he spoke at the end as part of Public Forum. He pointed out to the CIAC gentleman that he Richard had participated in three different public advisory committees, namely varnicolor, Sulco and Chemtura. He advised that Sulco were the gold standard of a company who were honest and forthright whereas Chemtura absolutely were not. They are unreasonable, combative and dogmatic and they feel that their bought and paid for consultants should not be challenged.

There was considerable discussion and questions surrounding minority positions on the verifcation team. Clearly CPAC do NOT remotely support Chemtura achieving verification. Dr. Dan is the only member of a six member team that was appointed through the committee of Woolwich Council, namely CPAC. Pat Mclean was appointed essentially by Chemtura, although through APT Environment. I do not know how many APTE members were involved in that decision but my guess is between two and four. Regardless if Chemtura achieve verification it will be contrary to the wishes of the public advisory committee appointed by Woolwich Council two years ago. I expect that Pat McLean as a National Advisoy Panel member of the CIAC will ultimately favour verification. If so it will be a triumph of rigged process and appointment versus honest earning of what Mr. Masterson referred to in one breath as the gold standard award for industry while in the next claiming oh no it's not an endorsement of Chemtura. Bullshit baffles brains but fortunately not all the time.