May 6, 2024

Good evening Mayor, Councillors, Staff, Wilmot Citizen Viewers

I’m here to supplement some Correspondence, appearing on the agenda as Item ______. The correspondence addresses items arising out of staff reports submitted to the Council. The items are the need to change the decision-making process used by the Council and staff regarding the rare issues of significant concern, and well as the decision-making process around the Prime Ministers Path project specifically.

The staff report, CAO-2024-03, was publicly presented to the Council on February 26, 2024. On March 25, 2024, Report CAO-2024-04 was presented and discussed and the Council chose Option #1.

Option #1 was, “Maintain Current Direction and Create a Working Group Comprised of a Balanced Representation of the Individuals and Communities within Wilmot Township.”

The March 25^th verbal presentation to the Council included the statement that the CAO office intended to hire a consultant to lead a Strategic Planning process that may or may not include the PMP project. Subsequently, it was acknowledged that, in fact, a firm, Linton Consulting, had already been awarded a contract to conduct a Strategic Planning process, and in fact that firm had already started its consultations with staff and Council members, and was imminently going to progress to wide public consultation meetings throughout the Wilmot community.

The presentation also included a couple of times, the statement, “If Council chooses to change direction, then….”. The implication appeared to be if option #1 was not chosen, then the July 5, 2021 motion by the previous Council would have to be rescinded and replaced with a new direction. The statement was made that option #1 was the best option of the 3 presented, as it would include a working group of citizens. Because the working group was confirmed as being the driver of the revised process, the Council voted to accept option #1.

CAO Report-2024-03 and CAO Report-2024-06, both include a project timeline. The wording in the Report CAO-2024-06 (April 8, 2024) was this:

“The proposed timeline will stage the work in conjunction with the Township’s strategic planning process, as follows;

• March to August 2024 – Undertake strategic planning process to develop a vision and goals for the community, based on robust community engagement.
• April 12 – RFP drafted
• April 15 to 19 – Draft RFP reviewed by Team
• April 22 – RFP posted on BidsandTenders.ca
• May 3 – RFP closes
• May 10 – RFP awarded
• End of May – Consultant to submit Working Group framework and engagement plan including proposed timelines for the creation of the working group and proposed work plan.

I tried to imagine how this would be operationalized – put into practice. I reviewed the information available in the presentations:

1. An RFP had been written, and distributed, and a contract was awarded for a strategic planning process.
2. The contract was awarded to Linton Consulting Services Inc. A Google search indicated that Linton Consulting is a father-and-daughter organization based in Elora. Its website contains the statement, “We build long-lasting business relationships. A key measure of success for us is being asked by our clients to stick around and do more work for them.”
3. The Reports CAO-2024-03 and CAO-2024-06 both indicated that an RFP will be written, distributed and awarded for the PMP project.
4. It was noted that Report CAO-2024-04, for consistency, repeated previously presented wording of option #1 as follows: “Maintain current direction and create a working Group of Individuals and Communities in Wilmot following completion of the Strategic Plan development.” The rationale presented by staff for “staging” the two projects separately was that Wilmot has a small staff, and doing both at the same time would be a task too large.
5. Then, in Report CAO-2024-06, the proposed timeline for the PMP project was to. “…stage the work in conjunction with the Township’s strategic planning process.” The phrase, “…in conjunction with” means the two issues will be done in combination with each other. Both will implemented at the same time and are done together. There was no explanation for why a task which was described as being too large for staff to manage, and had to be done sequentially, was now manageable and needed to be done simultaneously – “In conjunction with” each other.
6. The Council’s members have variously indicated that they want, reflecting public input, to have the decision-making and PMP project restarted, a redo, start over from the beginning. This process is recognized as necessarily being a completely separate process from any strategic planning process.
7. The staff’s proposed timeline means there will be two separate projects being implemented at the same time. The public will be invited to participate in two entirely different processes of consultation at the same time. A reasonable Wilmot citizen might conclude that there appear to be only two ways of executing these two processes.
8. Execute both consultation processes at the same time but separately. In practice, this could mean that one night of the week citizens of Wilmot go to their nearby community centre to be consulted robustly about developing a strategic plan for Wilmot Township. Then, potentially, they would be invited another night that week to attend their nearby community centre to be consulted robustly about the decision-making process and the fate of the statues and the PMP project. However, remembering that the CAOs original rationale for describing the timelines for the two projects needed to be sequential – one completed, then 2^nd started – was an incapacity of a small staff complement, this does not make sense logically. Why was staff previously incapable of performing two tasks simultaneously, but now have the capacity? Thus, it may be logically concluded that this is not the staging that will be implemented. They will not be done at the same time and separately. That leads to strategy two.
9. Execute both consultation processes at the same time, AND together (in conjunction with each other).
10. The CAO report indicated that staff had been meeting with and getting suggestions and direction from various, unnamed “experts” and consultants about “best practices” for how to proceed in a PMP project consultation process and what to specify as the contents of an RFP for the PMP project community consultation process.
11. The RFP for the PMP project would be then distributed. I then wondered, “Who were these “experts” and “consultants” who had participated in the process leading to the writing of this RFP? Were these same “experts” and consultants potentially going to be on the “BidsandTenders.ca” list? Were those who had inside, background information about the RFP then going to be potential bidders? It reminded me of a lesson my Scottish grandmother, taught me. “If you’re losing chickens from the henhouse, don’t get security advice from the fox, badger or weasel.”
12. The information available leads me to tentatively conclude that the only way to operationalize these two processes – strategic plan development and PMP decision-making restart simultaneously– was to fold them both TOGETHER. This process, as described, will not implement a restart of the PMP project which could result in a different fate for the PMP project at all. This is a visioning, mission statement, and strategic planning process with PMP painted on it in lipstick.
13. If both tasks – strategic plan development and determining the final resting place for the statues – were to be done together, then why distribute two RFPs? The most cost-effective, and most effective staff-time utilization option appears to be that the same consultant will conduct both consultation processes. Remember Linton’s promotional material, “A key measure of success for us is being asked by our clients to stick around and do more work with them.”
14. This hypothesis is supported by the statements made by the CAO, “If the Council chooses to go in a different direction” (than that described in the July 5, 2021 motion). The option #1 states, “Maintain the current direction…”. I’m guessing that the Council and, I admit I too, maybe assumed that option #1 consisted of a working group leading the way and then reporting back to the Council with a report describing a process to be used to implement a robust community consultation on the PMP project that would answer a simple question. “Why and how do we dispose of the statues and the educational materials already prepared for the PMP project?” OR “Why and how do we display the statues and implement the educational materials to support them?” WRONG!
15. The CAO made it a point to re-read the July 5, 2021 motion to the Council. “THAT staff arrange for the immediate removal and temporary storage of the four remaining statues on the Prime Ministers Path and discontinue any future expansion or investment in the Prime Ministers Path as it exists today.” and “THAT staff be directed to report back to Council with an implementation plan for the incorporation of the remaining recommendations from the First Peoples Group…”. That appears to be the meaning of the CAOs words, “Maintain the current direction…”
16. Given all the information as presented in various reports from the CAO, it may be reasonably concluded that: 1) There will be no further expansion of the PMP project as it exists today. 2) There will be no further investment in the PMP as it exists today. 3) The working group will be deciding how to start, “Engaging with the community on the permanent home for the Prime Ministers Path statues…” [Report CAO-2024-04, page 4 of 4.] 4) One question only: “How do we dispose of the statues?” No statues, no PMP educational project.
17. At this point, I came to the personal opinion that this management-created plan was a sham. (my opinion word.) Sham means, “A thing that is not what it is purported to be.” It was not what I thought it was purported to be. I was wrong that there were two options for the statues and that the community would make its recommendations. I was wrong because I didn’t read between the lines. I then realized that the wording in the CAO reports means exactly what it states. It’s not readily recognized or transparent what these reports all add up to BUT the intentions in the CAO reports are exactly correct in the wording that has been very carefully crafted. I suggest that possibly the Council members and I, and probably those citizens watching the YouTube videos of Council meetings, and reading the agendas and minutes have also made inaccurate assumptions and conclusions. Maybe we have seen what we wanted to see. Maybe we believed that there would be robust, widespread community consultation on a restart. We thought that maybe all Wilmot citizens who wanted to could participate in a legitimate process of information sharing, suggestion making, consensus building, participating in mutual sensitivity and understanding evolution, and recommending an action decision to the Council. WRONG!
18. The way this process is described this is going to be another top-down fiasco which will not provide an opportunity to consider two options – to dispose of or to display the statues with an already begun educational component. This process will only consider how to find “the permanent home for the PMP statues”. The July 5, 2021 motion, which is the “direction” that the CAO keeps referring to, states that the “permanent home for the PMP statues” will NOT be a display of some sort. They’re all in secret storage now, and the only decision will be where to dispose of them. No future investment, no expansion. NO potential display of statues as an option.
19. The folding of the strategic plan development into the PMP project “permanent home” process is, as I stated in the correspondence, a red-herring which will only obfuscate and detract from the original reason for this issue being returned for Council to address. Injecting a strategic plan process just leads us down a rabbit hole. The original issue was: a lack of appropriate public consultation, a consulting group which used a flawed process and was widely alleged to have a biased perspective before it started, a Council which reacted prematurely in an atmosphere of highly charged emotion stimulated by one group’s historic concerns, and a decision that appeared to ignore and did not reflect the wishes of a majority of Wilmot citizens. This issue is NOT JUST an Indigenous people issue. It could be equally proposed that numerous other identifiable groups could have, at any random time, stimulated a highly charged emotional crisis such as that which flabbergasted the previous Council. The PMP project was intended to display all of Canada’s Prime Ministers throughout all of our history. Each statue was designed to represent an individual era within that journey through history. Sir John A. Macdonald was only one era. There were eras before Sir John A. There were and will continue to be eras after Macdonald. Maybe the previous Council could have hired a consultant group consisting of Chinese, or Indians from India, or Asians, or Jews, or Sikhs, or Muslims, or Hindus, or Irish Fenians, or etc. Does anyone remember the “Head tax and Chinese Immigration Act of 1923”, or the “Indian Immigration and Continuous Journey Regulation of 1908” which turned around a ship and sent its immigrants back to India? Any of these groups could have thrown coloured paint onto the statue representing that era in Canada’s history. But they didn’t. They didn’t rise up, and thus they did not throw paint, toss their garbage under the bushes or leave behind wilted banners pounded into the Township’s grounds. Picking that consultant was a biased decision in that it gave preference to just one identifiable group with historical issues, and I suggest that we need to learn about and learn from many others through ‘Wilmots’ Walk Through History’.
20. I invite Councillors to count up, in their memories, the total of how many citizens they were in contact with during the 2022 election campaign who complained about the wording of the Township’s visioning statement, or the mission statement, or took particular issue with one of the objectives in the existing Strategic Plan? How many citizens have you heard from since who have major issues with the existing strategic Plan?
21. The Corporation of the Township of Wilmot has an existing roadmap, an existing strategic plan. You can see the 2 statements posted on the wall in the foyer outside these chambers. That display cost probably several hundred dollars to manufacture and mount on the wall. Now, almost halfway through this Council’s journey through its mandate, the staff is recommending that we pull over to the side of the road, sit around and wait while we create a new map of where we’re going. We already know. We have a strategic plan. In fact, staff has included on page 4 of Report CAO-2024-04 a full paragraph describing how its recommendations are in “Alignment With The Township of Wilmot Strategic Plan”. If it fits this issue, it must be still working OK.
22. Implementing a robust community consultation about a new strategic plan development joined together with a PMP consultation of where we’re going to dispose of the statues is a red herring, it is a distraction and a waste of staff time that is in short supply. It will be a huge confusion to citizen participants about why and what they are really there to do and will result in mass negative feedback to the Council about another top-down, administratively mandated, outside consulted, outside directed experience resulting in further frustration. It is my opinion that this process, as it presently exists, is doomed to fail.

As usual, I have recommendations for the Council to act on:

• Under the leadership of the Corporation’s CEO, Mayor Salonen, convene a meeting in CLOSED SESSION, as soon as practical.
• Only 7 persons will be invited to that CLOSED SESSION meeting; the Corporation’s Chief Executive Officer, the mayor, the Corporation’s Board of Directors, the 5 elected Councillors, and the Clerk whose role will be solely for official record keeping.
• Deliberate on what the voters told you when they did not elect the 3 previous Councillors aspiring to return to Council.Consider what the voters told you were their priority concerns during the last election campaign period and subsequently when evaluating the relative importance of a strategic plan development consultation compared to the voters’ expressed need to completely restart the PMP project decision-making process.
• During the agenda item, ‘Business Arising From Closed Session’, report back in public session with the following motions:

1. NOTICES OF MOTION

xx.x    Councillor (_____________) Regarding Prime Ministers Path Project: Next Steps

           Councillor (_____________) has given notice to introduce the following motion for consideration on this date:

RECOMMENDATION

WHEREAS Council recognizes the importance of transparency, accountability, and public consultation in municipal governance;

WHEREAS Council recognizes that broad-based community consultation on issues of recognized high public interest, such as the Next Steps regarding the Prime Ministers Path Project, requires a process which is not directed top-down but provides for full Wilmot citizens’ participation;

WHEREAS Council recognizes that any confusion about which direction the PMP project is moving toward must be avoided;

WHEREAS Council recognizes that the implications of its present “Maintain the Current Direction…” statement may not be clearly understood by all in Wilmot;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that staff is directed to:

• take no further action on community consultations regarding a strategic plan development process with Linton Consulting Inc. until further advised by the Council; 

• take no further action regarding the PMP project, including placing a hold on any RFP until further advised by Council as follows;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT staff is directed to:

• report to the Council at its next General Meeting, with an implementation timeline for:

• Date for drafting an RFP to hire a consultant to advise the Council and staff on the creation of a working group comprised of a balanced representation of the individuals and communities within Wilmot Township.

This working group will develop and suggest plans for the implementation of the next steps, centred on community cohesion and healing, which will;

1. a) describe a process of community engagement and consultation processes which will transform community engagement and consultation processes in Wilmot Township in a way that encourages greater openness, accountability and citizen participation in decision-making, with a REPORT to the Council AND,
2. b) develop and suggest plans for the implementation of next steps centred in community cohesion and healing which will implement the recommended community engagement and consultation processes described above, and as approved by the Council, to answer the question, “Why and how does Wilmot Township dispose of the PMP statues, OR why and how does Wilmot Township display the PMP statues and implement a complimentary educational component that will facilitate and encourage community learning, cohesion and healing”, with a recommendations REPORT to the Council.

• Date for review and approval of the Draft RFP by representative(s) of the Council.
• Date for posting of the RFP as approved by the Council.
• Date for the RFP closing.
• Date for the review of all RFP submissions by staff and representative(s) of the Council. Subsequent approval of the contract will be authorized by the Council.
• Date for the consultant to submit the proposed Working Group framework and engagement plan including proposed timelines for creating the working group.
• Date the working group commences its tasks as described in i) a) and b) above.

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED THAT the By-Law No. 2021-35 is rescinded immediately.”

• RECONVENE INTO OPEN SESSION
• BUSINESS ARISING FROM CLOSED SESSION:
• Introduce the above NOTICE OF MOTION
• Ensure that staff does not take any interim actions as this notice is not yet legally binding and there may be a temptation to proceed anyway. The Mayor should probably put it in writing to the CAO as a directive.
• Write a press release.
• The Mayor will serve as the spokesperson with the press.
• A press release should be released, its contents will be as directed and pre-authorized by the Council.
• The local press should be informed that a Notice of Motion addressing a significant Wilmot Township issue has been introduced by the Council, and the Press Release distributed.
• Councillors should be prepared to provide a comprehensive rationale for the Motion, including, for example:
• the 2022 election process gave a message to the present Council. Voter input and expressed strong concerns about a decision that appeared to lack adequate, accurate public input,
• the present wording of option #1 requires that the Council “Maintain the present direction”, that is the direction given by the previous Council to 1) terminate the agreement with Createscape Waterloo, 2) remove and store the statues, 3) to discontinue any further expansion in the PMP project, 4) to discontinue any further investment in the PMP project.
• the Council does not conclude that that option represents the wishes of the Wilmot voters to have their say, right from the beginning
• the Council believes that it is through a comprehensive community consultation process, led by a working group of representative Wilmot citizens, and supported by a contracted consulting firm, that all Wilmot citizens who choose to participate in a broad-based consultation process, must and will have an opportunity to provide their reasons for why and how the statues should be either disposed of or displayed with an educational component in some manner.
• the Council has heard that Wilmot citizens want a restart of this decision-making process regarding the PMP project
• the existing motion, option #1 does not provide for 2 choices by Wilmot citizens, it only provides direction to consult on how to find a “home” where the statues can be disposed of
• the Council believes that it is the citizens of Wilmot who must provide the information and direction upon which the Council will eventually make its decision, and decide to either dispose or display the statues, and how to do either one
• Be prepared for delegations who will speak only on the contents of the Notice of Motion at the next Council meeting.
• Make it clear that this is a Wilmot Township issue and the decision will be made by Wilmot Council using the input from Wilmot citizens.
• Ensure that speakers who are residents of Wilmot are prioritized in speaking order, and non-residents will only be accommodated if the time allotted provides for it. Speakers are not listed in the order in which they register. Potential delegations must provide their permanent residence address. Wilmot residents go first. Outsiders may or may not get an opportunity.

Personal Addendum:

THIS IS NOT AN INDIGENOUS ISSUE – ONLY

The reaction of some people by vandalizing one statue of a Prime Minister was stimulated by grievances of ONE identifiable group, Indigenous people. They associated a statue with resurrected information about a Canadian government policy that extended over many ‘eras’. They “blamed” one statue as a symbol of their grievances. It was probably easier to focus their message on one statue rather than dump paint on all statues of all P.M.s during whose leadership these grievances perpetuated.

“What factual information do we have about our history?” “What knowledge do we have as a result of that probably incomplete and inaccurate information?” “How does that incomplete knowledge result in making inaccurate conclusions about our present?” “How do we change our bag of information, our knowledge of events in a broader perspective about all that information, and how do we discuss our different perspectives before coming to conclusions and designing plans of action so as not to repeat errors of the past?”

Answer: The PMP Project

The PMP project was organized around eras of history; potentially before the 1^st PM, and during the ‘era’ of each PM. A statue served as the attraction/focal point and an educational component to facilitate learning, discussion, and comparisons of “era values”. There was the potential for reconciliation with all of our past “grievances”. The educational component was to be essential. It was intended to complement and supplement the viewers’ experiences. That educational component was in the process of development by Nipissing University and a significant portion of that educational component existed. (Hopefully, it still does.)

There are numerous examples throughout the world’s history, and thus in Canada’s history of identifiable groups being targeted” or feeling aggrieved about their treatment by fellow citizens.

It should be noted that all “bad” actions that result in “identifiable” individuals or groups feeling “targeted” or “aggrieved” do NOT reflect the views of any particular Prime Minister. Some events DO reflect the personal views of a Prime Minister. There are some events that reflect the views of a particular Prime Minister because they are COMMONLY HELD VIEWS of the Canadian population AT THAT TIME in our history.

We should avoid “cherry-picking” examples of grievous events (as some listed below are) without first putting them into the context of the views of the time they occurred.

This applies to events BEFORE Canada became a “nation” and there were no Prime ministers, as well as after July 1, 1867. We should distinguish between events that are “one-offs” and “patterns” of behaviour.  I suggest that individuals Municipalities and the courts can deal with the “one-offs” in a practical manner. Sociologists and psychologists would probably advise that “attitude and behaviour change” in large groups is extremely challenging. I suggest that long-term “patterns” of behaviour require more complicated strategies with significant support resources over long periods of time. We should recognize the difference between things we can influence and the things we can control. I believe the PMP project has the potential to “influence” attitudes and thus behaviours. It will not eliminate racism in Wilmot, and nothing this Council does or does not do (dispose of the statues) will control that.

Some random selections of events in Canada’s history when identifiable individuals or groups were targeted or aggrieved.

P.M. all of the first 13

1848-1960 – Africville was a derelict neighbourhood on the edge of Halifax. It was where escaped African slaves from the US, & their descendants were located. Nearby were relocated railroad tracks, sewage disposal pits, an open dump, with 70 negro families living in deplorable conditions. The city removed them from their homes, moved their belongings in city garbage trucks into the city, paid them $500 for their houses and declared the end of racism in the city of Halifax.

P.M. J.A. Macdonald

1880 – 1885 – 15,000 Chinese were brought to B.C. to build the C.P.R. and paid $1/day to do the most dangerous work with thousands being killed at work.

P.M. John Abbott

1900 – A Chinese head tax of $500 was placed on immigrants. Gangs riotously attacked Chinese and Japanese neighbourhoods. Chinese were forbidden from voting.

P.M. Robert Borden

1913 Women were forbidden from voting.

P.M. Robert Borden

1914 – Ontario decided that the only language of instruction in its schools would be English. (In opposition to the Canada Act)

P.M. Robert Borden

1915 – During the First World War, many were interned in prison camps near Kapuskasing as perceived enemy aliens: Germans, Ukrainians

1914 – 1920 – Berlin renamed Kitchener, 80,000 “enemy aliens” were forced to report monthly or were interned, (Ukrainians, Germans, Bulgarians, Turks, Croats, Serbs), a further 8,579 were interned in 24 work camps scattered across Canada (1,200 prisoners including 60 women & children were prisoners, held at gunpoint, at Camp Spirit Lake near Amos, Abitibi Region, with 100s of km of forest surrounding them)

P.M. Robert Borden

1919 – Winnipeg General Strike anger based on inability to find work, and blamed recent immigrants for taking away their jobs

P.M. William L.M. King

1938 – Kristallnacht (Broken Glass) in Berlin > Jewish immigrants were refused entry to Canada, raised the amount of capital required to enter Canada to $15,000, had to prove they were farmers, P.M. King bought all the land around his house to prevent Jews from becoming a neighbour, 907 Jewish immigrants on board the St. Louis ship were turned away

P.M. William L.M. King

1941 – WW2 – 1.200 fishing boats belonging to Japanese Canadians were impounded and sold

Jan. 14, 1942 – all the male Japanese Canadians between 18 & 45 were taken to camps in the B.C. interior, intent was to remove all Japanese from B.C. forever

Feb. 26, 1942 – 21,000 Japanese Canadians were allowed 1 suitcase each and “taken to livestock barns, photographed, finger-printed, given ID numbers” and after months of being herded into confinement in Vancouver were put on trains and relocated with families split apart, some to B.C. interior, others to Manitoba and Alberta to work on farms.

Jan. 19, 1943 – Fed. Gov’t. passed a law authorizing the sale of all seized Japanese properties without their consent.

P.M. Louis St. Laurent

1949 – the gov’t. removed the prohibition against Japanese-Canadians settling in B.C.

P.M. Lester B. Pearson & P. Trudeau

1967 & 1978 – immigration laws were revised to remove most of the racist barriers to immigration > large inflow of East Indians, West Indians, Portuguese, Greeks, and Italians > racist reactions to Sikh beards, turbans, saris > RCMP permitted Sikhs to wear turbans

P.M. Justin Trudeau

June 6, 2021 – the Afzaal family of 5 was walking on a sidewalk in London, Ont. when they were intentionally run over by a truck. 4 adults were killed and a young boy was orphaned. The Judge said at sentencing, “The offender did not know the victims. He had never met them. He killed them because they were Muslim.”

Etc.

The 2018-2022 Wilmot Council’s reaction was myopic. It associated this grievance targeted at one past Prime Minister with all Prime Ministers, all their statues, and the entire Prime Ministers Path project.

The Council’s choice was to acquire some “outside” advice and it hired a consultant. I believe that their choice of a consultant was prejudiced by the fact that the identifiable group that acted out to attract the world’s attention to their grievances was “Indigenous”. The previous Council did not do its “due diligence” in analyzing the fundamental nature of concern. The Council jumped prematurely to the conclusion that the issue was “Indigenous”. I allege that the issue was NOT INDIGENOUS ONLY. I suggest that the accurate issue is: “A lot of ‘bad’ stuff has happened to a lot of identifiable individuals and groups before and after July 1, 1867, and it is NOT JUST an Indigenous issue.”

Hiring an Indigenous consultant was prejudiced in that the Council assumed it was ONLY an Indigenous issue. When they hired a consultant, I suggest that a myopic Council did not, or maybe cynically it did anticipate the result. At least 3 of the previous Councillors suddenly reversed their long-held positions becoming vociferous advocates focused on the Indigenous aspect of a much larger issue, it ignored the statistical input from delegates to the Council, and had their written comments prepared before any delegations and it voted on the issue.

The public identified this flaw in the decision-making process and the election results directed the new Council to restart this decision-making process by consulting with them before making a decision about the statues and the entire project with an educational component. They spoke clearly that they wanted a “do-over”, not a “maintain the direction” process. Option #1 as it exists is NOT a “do-over”, it is a “maintain the direction” which is to get rid of the statues because the July 5, 2021 “direction” mandates that everything else is a fait accompli > no expansion, no further investment = the PMP project is dead. Option #1 is a fiasco!

How do we learn, discuss a path forward and reconcile our understandings maybe resulting in some larger degree of cohesion than presently exists in Wilmot? How can we “influence” a potential change in attitudes?

See pages 7 – 11

Thank you for your interest.

Barry Wolfe