Dear editor,

I find it necessary to clarify some inaccurate information provided by S.M. Hargreaves in her Jan. 17 letter to the Record.

She is right in stating that trustee Livesey rose on a point of personal privilege and asked for immediate answers to his questions on Dec. 15.

A point of personal privilege is one of Robert鈥檚 Rules of Order that allows a member to ask for a direct response to a comment defaming one鈥檚 character, and according to those same rules, it supercedes all other business. It is not an 鈥渋gnorant鈥� attempt to disrupt the meeting.

The point of privilege was necessary when it became known throughout the community that UBID, through its own lawyer, had made allegations of illegal conduct against two unnamed trustees.

The way this information became public was because the landowner who received the letter shared it with other community residents.

To say that 鈥渢hey (UBID) could not speak to a letter they had not received鈥� defies logic. Does that mean that UBID鈥檚 lawyer made up the allegations on his own and put them into a letter sent on behalf of the board? Did UBID not receive a copy of all correspondence sent on their behalf? If the board had, in fact, not seen the letter, then who was directing their lawyer? What are the costs of this unprecedented action?

It is these kinds of questions and suspect behaviour that is troubling to many landowners of Union Bay.

Now that UBID has a legal opinion regarding the allegations, they should release it to the public 鈥� post it on the website or mail it out with the next water bill. Then the community can make up its own mind about what is going on.

Carol Molstad,

Union Bay