Dear Editor:
Ever since I have learned the English language (at about 30 years of age) and started reading Canadian newspapers, I was wondering why in Canadian politics the majority and minority parties seem to never agree on anything.
"They would argue even if one of them claims that two and two equals four," I thought.
But why?
Finally, I found the answer in your article "Is school board missing a voice?" (The Record, Friday Dec. 6, by Niki Hope). Let me quote the eye-opener passage, where newly elected school board chair explains why a Voice candidate was not elected for vice-chair:
The article says the newly elected chair "doesn't see it as a missed chance to bring the board together, because trustees tend to agree on most issues."
The chair says: "I think for the most part we do (agree). ... A lot of the times things proceed very smoothly, and on a lot of the big-ticket items we agree ... I think overall we are very collaborative."
Now I understand.
If "opposition" agrees and supports the "majority," the "majority" will use this against them. In case of New Westminster school board, this means that Voice trustees could have a better chance to be elected for vice-chair if they constantly disagreed with the other slate and prevented the things from "proceeding smoothly" or were completely non-collaborative.
Right?
It sure looks this way from the quoted passage; but such approach would not be in the best interests of New Westminster students!
Vladimir Krasnogor, New Westminster
