David Kircher
Dear editor:
The Rainy River District School Board, in its response to my last letter, stated that: “Our media release pertained to failing to report the faulty monitor which was the direct cause of the charge.”
Therefore I submitted the following to the board:
To Mr. Belluz, chair of Rainy River District School Board, and trustees:
I just received your letter dated Feb. 11, 2009 together with the enclosed documentation of the court proceedings from Jan. 8, 2009. I draw your attention to this sentence in your last letter: “We felt it important for the public to understand that as a result of the broken monitor, the board was charged.”
In fact, the board originally had been charged with four counts of committing an offence under the Safe Drinking Water Act 2002. You will note Charge #2, which was withdrawn, refers to immediately failing to report to the ministry and the medical officer of health.
Charge #3 referred to failing to ensure that corrective action was taken (also withdrawn) and Charge #4 to failing to take all reasonable steps to ensure that all users of water were notified (also withdrawn).
Therefore, failing to report the faulty monitor would be considered the direct cause of Charge #2, not Charge #1.
Further, if the board feels it is important for the public to understand, then as the prosecutor for the Ministry of Environment stated “. . . a number of students and the number of staff, however, that were at risk in this particular case is substantial. This was a drinking water system that supplies water to the most vulnerable population, school children, and that drinking water system must always be properly maintained and in a fit state of repair.”
The questions that I asked in my last e-mail of Feb. 5, 2009 are not addressed in the documentation you have enclosed with your Feb. 11, 2009 letter. Therefore, I will expect an answer for each question asked.
In terms of the importance for the public to understand why the board was charged and paid a fine of $10,000, together with legal fees of $12,657, simply stating failing to report a faulty monitor does not meet that criteria.
Regarding the Fort Frances High School and missing funds in excess of $315,000, the board has not answered the question: why the board has not acknowledged the missing funds nor addressed any of the public concerns surrounding that event?
That should have as much significance to this board if it feels that public understanding and trust is important.
I will await your response to the questions asked.
Thank you,
David Kircher
Fort Frances, Ont.
