May 15, 2014

Dear Editor,

Could you please publish my letter to the Placencia Village Council members on this very important matter?

Dear Placencia Village Council members,

I am writing to express my extreme disappointment with the chairlady’s remarks to LOVE FM, May 14, 2014, re: NCL and recent Placencia Village Council (PVC) public meeting votes.

I was in attendance at both last week’s (8 May 2104) and last year’s (July 2013) PVC meeting when the NCL topic was broached. My issues with the LOVE FM comments by the Placencia PVC chairlady are thus:

She stated last year’s meeting did not have a quorum, yet there were at least three times as many attendees on the basketball court last year as there were last week at the community center. However, since no participant/attendance list was taken, neither her estimate nor mine can be verified;

At both meetings a vote was held with all who voted (by a show of hands), voting in favor of supporting the BTB Master Plan, which specifically outlines only small pocket cruise ship tourism should be allowed in the South.

At no time was there a vote on the Placencia 2020 document, which is what the chairlady stated on LOVE FM; in fact, this correction was noted at last week’s meeting just prior to the vote.

Perhaps most disturbing was the comment that the meetings are not attended by villagers, implying, I guess, that attendees all reside north of the still undecided/unresolved Placencia Village boundary line.

Without calling specific names, I personally could identify multiple Placencia village residents at both meetings, and find it insulting that the chairlady told the national news that PVC meetings are rarely/poorly attended; and that “an informal poll by walking around the village” takes precedent over public meetings. If this is this case, why hold public meetings at all?

Regarding said attendance, many villagers complained of receiving a text notification of last week’s meeting just hours prior to the meeting.

And finally, at no time during last week’s meeting were the attendees informed of PVC’s prior meeting with Minister Hulse, or any other government official, regarding the NCL “deal” – yesterday’s remarks by the chairlady on this were the first public announcement of this prior meeting, to my knowledge.

Last year when the PTGA held a vote, with a quorum, opposing the NCL “deal,” the PVC chairlady had also stated that PVC supports the PTGA. That vote has not been retaken. So essentially, by stating to the media that the PVC council members support the NCL “deal,” they are opposite of the PTGA’s opinions, and the opinions of the majority at the only two public opinion polls on the subject held to date.

I personally find this difficult to accept, as the widely held definition of an elected public official is to represent the majority of their voter base. Perhaps PVC could clarify their decision-making process?

Sincerely,

(Signed) Lisa Carne