THE WOOLWICH OBSERVER DISAPPOINT YET AGAIN

It's called ethics. It's called walking the talk. It's called standards. Whatever you want to call it, the Observer no longer have it. RIP.

My post here yesterday was titled "Ending On A Whine - Mark Bauman". This was my response to the Observer's story titled "Ending on a high note". The Observer's reporter did a story on retiring councillor Mark Bauman. Fair enough he's been a Woolwich councillor for the last eighteen years. Granted in some circles in this Region that no longer carries much if any panache. Woolwich has been publicly exposed for their small town, inbred?, second and third rate governance. Incidents such as the 2016 attempt to shut down Delegations to council regarding Chemtura, the masquerade last spring of appointing Julie-Anne Herteis to council over ten other, much better qualified candidates and the manufactured crisis to remove CPAC in 2015 because Chemtura and the MOE were crying for their mommies.

The Observer actually were on the public's side in response to these incidents. The Observer reported the facts and in their Editorials made it clear where they stood. They referred to Woolwich's embarassing act in regards to trying to shut down citizen Delegations. They initially supported citizens such as Dr. Dan Holt, Richard Clausi and myself in regards to half of Woolwich Council being found in contravention of the Municipal Election Act (MEA). The Observer questioned the claims of Mark Bauman and Sandy Shantz regarding CPAC's alleged "dysfunction", both a Mark epithet and a usual political fallback position when you really have nothing to justify your criticism. The Observer knew there was dysfunction but it lay at the feet of Chemtura and the MOE, not CPAC.

So why am I disappointed with the Observer? They have not published comments from two different Woolwich citizens in regards to yesterday's Observer article about Mark Bauman. There were numerous errors of fact in that article and Richard Clausi as well as myself politely pointed them out yesterday in the Observer's Comment section at the end of the Mark Bauman article. We were told we were awaiting "moderation". Well we are still waiting! Are these comments acceptable only if they support the Observer's position? Have the Observer decided that they don't want anything in their newspaper right before the election that might hurt Patrick's chances of re-election? Keep in mind our comments do not remotely reflect upon Patrick, only upon Mark Bauman.