Editor,
After reading the article in the latest issue of the Chief I feel compelled to remark on what appears to me to be very poor reporting.
First, Catherine Jackson was not a panel member. One panel member - myself - was missed by the reporter, suggesting that the reporter left before the final presentation or was somehow mentally absent during the time I spoke, responded to questions, and received applause.
Second, it is commendable that I and others acknowledged the limits to our knowledge. This is something done too infrequently in these situations and individuals should be encouraged to point out what they have expertise in and what they do not.
Myself I clearly stated up front that I am not an expert on the details of the project nor the intricacies of the Squamish economic context but that I was going to offer my perspective given that I have expertise in the subject matter in general and directed my commentary along those lines discussing concerns, questions that should be asked, common patterns in economic impact analyses, etc. as a PhD candidate studying the economic impacts of massive projects and with consulting experience in these matters.
This is a far cry from lacking expertise and Mr. Levine's questioning of panel member's expertise should have been examined critically instead of freely and irresponsibly been given airtime.
Clearly, fishing guides, hydrogeologists, and members of local First Nations have expertise and perspectives that can offer a lot to this debate. Moreover, to debase the others' commentary as lacking expertise is to ignore the knowledge that they have gained through their personal interest and to discourage public involvement by dumping on them for having the courage to speak publicly on these matters. Certainly all people sitting on an 'expert panel' should be scrutinized for credentials, but the reporter's surficial examination of this topic speaks to the quality of her report.
Third, Councillor Race's noting that the information presented may not be entirely accurate is likely true, but what the reporter should have done is inquired as to what the accurate information is, including why the district has not helped the situation by releasing the revised socio-economic study.
The community's interest in this topic and any gaps in the meeting in general should be taken as cause for stepping up to the plate, whether by the local activist community or more appropriately the District of Squamish.
Overall this story is really weak in my opinion. The story's simplistic and narrow coverage of events such as the noting of the "shut up" commentary speaks of a reporter with seemingly little desire to understand the events taking place nor report them, and almost suggests that she has an agenda to propel by passing off the legitimate attempt by all involved to come to a better understanding of the topic.
Chris Joseph
Squamish
