———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Richard Peachey <r.d.peachey@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: Abuse of public office in Abbotsford
To: Henry Braun <HBraun@abbotsford.ca>, Henry Braun <mayorbraun@abbotsford.ca>, Henry Braun <hbraun@henrybraun.ca>, Henry Braun <hvbraun@shaw.ca>
Cc: Patricia Ross <PRoss@abbotsford.ca>, “systems@ombudsman.bc.ca” <systems@ombudsman.bc.ca>, Conflict of Interest <conflictofinterest@coibc.ca>, George Murray <gmurray@abbotsford.ca>, Ross Siemens <RSiemens@abbotsford.ca>, Les Barkman <LBarkman@abbotsford.ca>, Moe Gill <mgill@abbotsford.ca>, Brenda Falk <BFalk@abbotsford.ca>, “Dave F. Loewen (Councillor)” <DFLoewen@abbotsford.ca>, Kelly Chahal <KChahal@abbotsford.ca>, Sandy Blue <SBlue@abbotsford.ca>, “Ian MacDonald, APD” <imacdonald@abbypd.ca>, Bill Flitton <BFlitton@abbotsford.ca>, Katie Karn <KKarn@abbotsford.ca>, Siri Bertelsen <sbertelsen@abbotsford.ca>, Darren Braun <dbraun@abbotsford.ca>, Darryl Plecas <darryl.plecas.mla@leg.bc.ca>, Andrew Holota – Abbotsford News <aholota@blackpress.ca>

Hi, Henry. In response to your Nov. 10 email to my wife, I offer the following:

(1) Your email of Oct. 6 (below) remains an inadequate response to the issue of yourself and Councillor Siemens having publicly charged my wife, in her absence, with spreading “misinformation” and “misleading her neighbourhood” (abetted by city manager, George Murray, as fully detailed here). This matter must not be left for staff to deal with at some future, as-yet-unscheduled, small neighbourhood meeting. The appropriate response is for the three of you to apologize to Gerda now.

(2) You say you are disappointed in my “recollection” and characterization of our Nov. 3 discussion. “Neither Richard nor I were taking notes during our 45 minute discussion,” you write. Well, Henry, I was certainly taking mental notes. But just suppose I had made written notes. In fact, suppose the whole session was recorded on video and an accurate transcript was prepared. That would mean nothing to you, Henry. How do I know that? Because the Oct. 3 council meeting actually was recorded on video, and you were totally unimpressed by the written evidence of that transcript! You were evasive, you were dismissive, you made excuses. You said you spoke off the top of your head, that you weren’t that good with English, and “everyone on this floor knows that.” You physically picked up the written transcript, turned it over, and placed it face down on the table. So if a transcript of our meeting existed, I have no reason to doubt you would handle it in just the same way. You simply do not want to be held accountable for your words, even when they are recorded.

(3) You write that 35 minutes of our 45 minute discussion “revolved around the ‘sticker’.” You’re forgetting the “big picture,” Henry. The issue is that you must apologize to Gerda. The sticker was a focus of the discussion because you and Councillor Siemens, abetted by George Murray, publicly charged my wife, in her absence, with spreading “misinformation” and “misleading her neighbourhood.” The reason for an extended focus on the sticker is that you were not even willing to accept the basic facts of the issue.

(4) You write, “I gently turned over Richard’s paper in an effort to make better use of our remaining 10 minutes”. Well, no one has claimed you did it violently. The issue is that you did such a thing at all. And the reason you did it was to evade your recorded statement that I was pointing to, which clearly connected the word “misinformation” and the word “sticker” — a connection you had denied just a moment before!

(5) You write, “In any event, the comments attributed to me by Richard are taken out of context and are not an accurate reflection of our discussion, which is unfortunate.” Well, Henry, it is the discussion itself that was unfortunate. But the comments I noted were not taken out of context. The context is that you were attempting to evade responsibility for your words because you did not want to apologize to my wife for publicly accusing her, in her absence, of spreading “misinformation” regarding the sticker requirement.

(6) You write, “In any event, during my discussion with Richard, I repeatedly stated that my use of the word ‘misinformation’ encompassed much more than just the sticker. It is unfortunate that both Richard and you appear to be fixated on the sticker, which is a very narrow slice of the ‘misinformation pie’.” Well, Henry, I am glad to see you acknowledge that the sticker is at least part of what you are labeling as “misinformation,” because during our Nov. 3 meeting you attempted to deny even that! But remember that during your council speech on Oct. 3, in which you used the word “misinformation” three times, the sticker requirement was the only example of “misinformation” that you provided (and Gerda was the only person connected with “misinformation” whom you alluded to). The public so far has no idea what other alleged pieces of misinformation you are talking about. For all we know, your basis for calling the other ones “misinformation” may be as slender as your basis for calling the sticker requirement “misinformation”! You even stated during our meeting that you weren’t going to release the other pieces of “misinformation” because that would give me an opportunity to challenge them! But, Henry, an allegation that is not allowed to be challenged has no credibility. That’s why we have cross-examination in court. Everyone seems right until someone else comes forward to question his evidence. Your behaviour on this point is reprehensible.

(7) You write that we “appear to be fixated on the sticker.” No, Henry. I am fixated on the dishonour you have shown to my wife. You and Councillor Siemens charged her publicly, in her absence, with spreading “misinformation” and “misleading her neighbourhood.” During our Nov. 3 meeting you complained that Gerda had used the word “corruption” when writing about Abbotsford council. But given that the city manager used falsehood to incite you and Councillor Siemens to accuse her, and that all three of you are refusing to apologize, I do not see that the word “corruption” is far off the mark.

Henry, I worked hard to help get you elected as mayor. Based on your record as councillor, I had high hopes for you as mayor. One of the reasons I opposed former mayor Bruce Banman was that he had denounced my wife in public, from his mayoral bully pulpit, and then refused to apologize. I am very sorry to see that you have become Bruce Banman.

Sincerely,

Richard Peachey

Advertisements