KUDOS TO DR. DAN HOLT & THE WOOLWICH OBSERVER

It would have been easy for our local newspaper the Observer, after criticizing my decision to privately charge Councillor Scott Hahn with multiple Municipal Election Act (MEA) charges, to wimp out of publishing Dr. Holt's lengthy Letter to the Editor. Dr. Holt not only supports my decision but he also suggests that a double standard has been in place regarding the coverage and opinions regarding former mayor Todd Cowan versus Scott Hahn. Also I might add the Observer published two (ill-informed) Letters to the Editor last week regarding my MEA charges against Mr. Hahn. Finally not to put to fine a point on it, half the ownership of the Observer, namely Patrick Merlihan, is also a member of Woolwich Council. It is no stretch to suggest that any mud sticking to various Council members can be viewed as sticking to all of them. That is particularily unfortunate in this case as I personally feel that Patrick Merlihan is the best of a poor lot on that Council.

I guess what I'm beating around the bush at is that in theory at least newspapers are supposed to provide balance. They are supposed to interview both sides of an issue and report accurately. They are supposed to publish Letters to the Editor that not only buttress their opinions, Editorials and stories but also, if submitted, Letters expressing contrary opinions. The Woolwich Observer have therefore earned full marks with today's edition.

Kudos to Dr. Holt for his courage. Right about now Todd Cowan's name is mud more based upon the allegations and charges swirling around him for the last two years than the actual recent conviction and sentencing on Breech of Trust involving $140.09 . There I too said it out loud. When I first read Dr. Holt's Letter to the Editor I was biased. I don't like Todd Cowan the same way I don't like professional corporate hacks and liars or government bureaucratic liars (M.O.E.) right along with elected liars. Todd has lied to my face and about me behind my back. Pretty hard to like him under those circumstances.

I've now read Dr. Holt's Letter three times. Quite frankly he's right. Todd Cowan after an intensive investigation and lengthy trial was found Not Guilty of Fraud. The judge whom I believe has no reason to be anything but unbiased did not accept that the Crown had proven Mr. Cowan intentionally attempted to take $2,800 improperly from the taxpayers. Wow! That is not easy for me to say. Despite Todd Cowan's lack of organization, poor bookeeping habits and overall incompetence as a manager he is not a criminal stealing thousands of dollars. That said the Breech of Trust conviction however does seem entirely appropriate. For $140.09 and probably a little bit of ego in front of his girlfriend, he was properly convicted of Breech of Trust. That the Judge gave Mr. Cowan a Conditional Discharge also seems appropriate considering the piddling amount of money involved.

If Dr. Holt's letter was on-line in the Observer right now I would provide a link to it. It is lengthy but well worth reading carefully. Try and read it from an unbiased point of view. I know it's difficult as we all have strong opinions regarding Mr. Cowan but I'm learning to accept that just because Todd has some serious failings and challenges, that doesn't mean he's guilty of every allegation that's been thrown at him.