Dear Editor:
RE: Centre Wellington resident puts the brakes on two bridge demolition projects, Aug. 6.
Thank you for your excellent article. I’m very glad you spoke to Councillor Steven VanLeeuwen. It was interesting to read his impressions. Councillor VanLeeuwen is a very busy council member; I hope he isn’t misremembering a few details.
VanLeeuwen said the Centre Wellington Heritage Committee did not offer an opinion at their November meeting. The meeting record shows differently. The committee rejected the consultant’s reports because, among other things, they were fundamentally flawed in the rationale they applied to justify demolition.
The committee asked township staff to revise the consultant’s reports and return to the committee after they had been revised. Rather than revising the reports and returning to the committee for review and comment, in December staff presented their recommendation to demolish to council.
The council meeting record shows that VanLeeuwen did nothing to inform council about the concerns of the committee or mention that the committee had rejected the consultant’s findings.
VanLeeuwen is quoted in the Advertiser article as saying “Jean feels the committee was bypassed. That’s why I said to send a report and have council receive it. There has been a willingness to go back and ensure everyone is heard.”
I do appreciate VanLeeuwen’s expression of concern for my views. However, the only communication he has had with me about the matter was in an unsolicited email message he sent me in February. The councillor did not ask for a report. Instead, he said he had spoken to township staff who had committed to contacting me personally to discuss the bridges. Six months have gone by and there has been no contact.
What is most troubling is that VanLeeuwen does not appear to understand that if the township had followed the appropriate due process, a Part II Order request would not have been necessary.
Perhaps VanLeeuwen would consider advocating that future Centre Wellington Heritage Committee meetings should be recorded and published. This would bring two benefits: 1) council and the public would be able to hear the Centre Wellington Heritage Committee’s recommendations directly; and 2) neither VanLeeuwen nor staff would need to worry about misremembering facts when they report to council about the heritage committee.
Jean Gerrard,
Fergus