Well we got what I can only describe as a ‘sort of response’ to our letter to the Trust.
To refresh memories, the original letter was sent on 9th June 2015. It had to be sent as a physical letter because previous emails had been ignored, and we were informed that only physical letters would be ‘actioned’ (note the quotes).
We received a physical letter response on 23rd June saying that they were considering matters and it would be actioned at the Trust meeting of 1st July. We would have attended this meeting but it is not open to members of the Trust – only its Directors (I won’t start asking why this is – it seems more than a little unusual to me considering that the Trust should exist solely to serve the community).
We have now seen what would appear to be the first public response from the Trust to our questions in a note detailing the minutes of the Trust Meeting of 1st July on the Lochgoilhead community web site (dated 1st August) as follows…
“A letter has been received from Mr R McCune, Donich Lodge, regarding Donich Hydro. An initial reply was made stating it would be addressed at this Trust Meeting. Serious concern was raised, as the letter had been published on the Goil Info Web page, prior the Trust meeting of the 1st July. It was felt that this was highly inappropriate and unprofessional behaviour. The directors, unanimously, agreed to forward the letter to Pete Clark to ensure an accurate response. The directors, also decided that an interim communication be made to Mr McCune, prior to Pete Clark’s response. AW (my note – this is Alison White) to action.”
I’ll make a couple of points here…
a) More important point first. We have not received any type of communication (interim or otherwise) from the Trust or anyone else about this in the 33 days since the meeting took place.
b) The letter was published in ‘The Wee Goil’ and on the community web site because we felt it was important that everyone in the community heard the answers to what we regard as very important questions. Possibly more pertinently under the circumstances, we wanted to ensure that we actually got a response. As a side point, the letter had been supposed to accompany an article in TWG about the scheme which would have placed the questions in proper perspective, but for reasons outwith our control, it was not published.
It has come to a very sad pass in local democracy when asking questions about an important matter for the community causes this type of response and doesn’t even elicit a proper reply. The clock is still ticking on whether we will actually get an answer – it is now 53 days since we asked our questions. The members of the Trust may be interested to know that we will continue to monitor and follow up on this situation without giving up until we finally get an answer.