UCP meeting and candidacy was a sham

Dear Editor,
In the issue June 14, pg. 5, letter to the editor, titled Concerns on UCP AGM and candidacy.
I was at the meeting referred to in the letter and want to confirm that what he wrote in that letter was true.
That meeting was a sham. It was organized and designed to stack the board with members that would support Nathan Horner as a candidate.
People attending the meeting were handed a list of names outside the hall. Everyone that was on that list was elected to the board, and most of them were not on the previous board.
I expect it was assumed that those of us that were on that board were supporters of our MLA.
With one exception, everyone that was on the previous board that had been a supporter of the legacy Wildrose Party was purged from the board.
It would appear that those who were on that list are or were supporters of the legacy PC Party.
While the ballots were being counted at the meeting, I was approached by Mr. Horner, and he informed me that he was upset as he was being criticized by Rick Strankman’s legislative assistant.
He informed me that he intended to run a clean campaign.
Well, excuse me, when you organize a meeting with hundreds of people, hand them a piece of paper with instructions on who to vote for so as to stack the board and THEN you have the audacity to claim you are running a “clean” campaign?
That strikes me as being as being the ultimate hypocrite.
I am not opposed to there being a nomination contest. That is what democracy is about.
What happened at that meeting was not about a nomination contest, it was about dirty one-sided politics in my opinion.
Herman Schwenk,
Coronation

About the author

Avatar

ECA Review Publisher

Subscribe

* indicates required