Dean Marsters in his letter (Haldi road bias) suggests that Ms. Green "is backing out of voting on the [fourth reading] debate" to remain neutral "in an attempt to gain election votes."
As I read it in the transcript, Ms. Green, when she said she would step aside, was responding to the interviewer's forceful claim: "I know what perceived conflict is, the optics of it."
Given this comment, I suppose Ms. Green did what most in public office would do: stay clear of the risk as seen by her voters to be in a conflict of interest, be it real or perceived.
Since all this is in the context of a run for the mayor's office, I wonder how Mr. Marsters judges Mr. Dan Rogers's decision to withdraw from the crucial vote on the Skakun affair just days before the election kickoff, after he had been the driver of this process all along. Mr. Rogers made it clear that he was not in any conflict, that he was fully capable to make unbiased judgments, but gave other reasons to step aside from voting and chairing this meeting, leaving it to the then acting mayor, Ms. Green.
This is a competition for an important position in our community. I suggest that if we voice suspicion of ulterior motives about one contestant's actions, we do it for all - or better yet, leave speculation out of it.
Horst Sander
Prince George
