STRATHCONA GARDENS · MY RESPONSE
CHEK mixed up the letters.
The story puts an August call for separate votes before my July reply, without telling readers the dates.
THE ERROR, IN PLAIN ENGLISH
My July reply could not have answered an August letter.
The dispute: who pays for Strathcona Gardens, and whether each community should have its own vote.
What CHEK did
The article introduces the Minister’s July 23 letter, then quotes her August 31 recommendation for separate votes without saying it is a different letter. It later presents our July 31 reply without that date.
What I actually answered
I co-signed the July 31 reply to the July 23 questions. The recommendation CHEK quotes came on August 31, a month later.
That presentation can make my earlier reply look like a rejection of the later recommendation. It wasn’t a response to that letter. It couldn’t have been.
Separate voting was already raised in July. My point is the mixed-up sequence, not that the Minister had no concerns.
Watch the coverage 27 SECONDS, THEN THE ORIGINAL LETTERSA short clip. Three dates. The letters beside every point.
NOW WATCH WHAT AIRED
Two letters.
No explanation of the switch.
The sequence
gets lost.
The clip switches letters without explaining the change. The article quotes August’s recommendation, then presents my July reply without its date. That can make my earlier reply read as an answer to the later letter.
Read CHEK’s full story ↗CHEK TV SAID Broadcast summary
Describes a letter, while showing July’s questions and then August’s preference.
Watch that switch ↑WHAT REALLY HAPPENED
Two ministerial letters.
Different dates.
July 23 raised concerns and asked for answers. The preference shown in the clip is from August 31.
CHEK TV SAID Article sequence
Presents our reply after that preference, without identifying the reply’s date.
WHAT REALLY HAPPENED
My reply
came first.
I co-signed it on July 31, answering July 23. It cannot be a response to a letter written a month later.
CHEK TV SAID Quotes the Minister
“It is my preference…”
The article carries this wording, but does not identify its August 31 date.
Check the article ↗WHAT REALLY HAPPENED
The missing date:
August 31.
The Minister preferred separate approval, while acknowledging the Board’s discretion. CHEK includes that qualification. What the article leaves out here is the August 31 date.
LIMIT
A SEPARATE QUESTION
Who received the letters?
CHEK also reports an allegation that letters were not shared with directors. The dates do not settle who received what, or when. I won’t pretend they do.