Saturday, December 19, 1992 @ PAGE |: = = = Op Dave McCullough Publisher Scott David Harrison Editor Bob Proctor Marketing Manager Mickey Read Composing Room Foreman Warren Chernoff Accountant Mary Ann Fullerton Circulation Manager OurVWiEWS Critical condition ( "how els is a shy community, how else do you explain its J unwillingness to speak up about the future of health care services in the West Kootenay? This shyness must be overcome, though, because Castlegar may be dragged into a medical services war with Trail and Nelson. Both Trail and Nelson are planning massive improvements to their hospitals — improvements to the tune of $41 million taxpayer dollars. There is little doubt that improvements to the Trail Regional and Kootenay Lake District Hospitals are needed, but in an age of shrinking health-care dollars can the province afford it? No. Minor renovations are one thing, but when a $41 million price tag is being waved in the face of Victoria, you can bet that the government will think twice about approving a $24 million project in Nelson and a $17 million plan for Trail. Resurrecting a Bill Vander Zalm idea, the government has announced that it is looking to curtail services across the province. B.C. plans on developing regional hospitals in key communities. Enter Castlegar — the ideal site for a multi-service regional hospital. Trail and Nelson will no doubt oppose this notion, but Castlegar’s central location and proximity to an airport have compelling appeal to any belt-tightening government. The arguments are there, it’s up to Castlegar to use them. Adrian RAESIDE NATIVE FISHERMEN CANHED FISH PROCESSORS CANNED FISHERIES OFFICERS CA INET TERS THE SOCKEYE SALMON bait FROM THE AUGER ETN ABUNDANCE . ~Jata tees are FZ %e = News trying to unseat Moore? There is a sentiment in the community that is getting stronger with the passing of each week — and with each edition of The Castlegar News. In a few words it is this: The News is out to get Mayor Audrey Moore. For the most part, I’ve been reluctant to comment on this issue. And for good reason. As a former editor of the paper I think about what it Ron NORMAN from the Crossroads Regional Central city on the District of Kootenay board. I better say straight out that I don’t know if The News is trying to unseat Moore; I’ve never asked the publisher, editor or reporters. But based strictly on what has appeared in the paper, it sure looks that way. Let’s examine the regional district issue. would be like if I was still working at the paper and had to endure the judgement of past editors still living in the area: So I’ve kept quiet... until now. That’s because in the last week I’ve had more people than ever comment to me about The News’ coverage of Moore — in particular the paper’s reporting and editorial position on last week’s tussle between Moore and Councillor Doreen Smecher to see who would represent the The News came out firmly in Smecher’s corner. No surprise there. Even when Smecher has stumbled badly, The News has stood by her. The incident between the city and the school board is a good example. Smecher was solely responsible for writing the offending report to the Education Funding Review Panel, a report soundly condemned by everyone. please see NORMAN page 7 Street WALK Burt Camp Publisher Emeritus L.V. Campbell Aug. 7, 1947- Feb. 15, 1973 Question: Should members of Castlegar city council be given a pay raise? Caroline Savinkoff Castlegar “No. They get paid enough.” Kathryn Dice Castlegar “No. I think they ‘ make enough money.” earn it.” Peggy King Castlegar “Yes. They probably Bill Gorkoff Castlegar “I don’t know, but their work consumes A it Mary Davis Castlegar “Yes. I think they work pretty hard.” a lot of time.” @ Saturday, December 19, 1992 Other VIEWS | Please address all letters to: Letters to the Editor Castlegar News P.O. Box 3007 Castlegar, B.C. V1N 3H4 or deliver them to 197 Columbia Ave. Letters should be typewritten, double-spaced and not longer than 300 words. Letters MUST be signed and include the writer's first and last names, address anda telephone number at which the writer can be reached between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. The writer's name and city or town of residence only will be published. Only in exceptional cases will letters be published anonymously. Even in those cases, the name, address and phone number of the writer MUST be disclosed to the editor. The News reserves the right to edit letters for brevity, clarity, legality, grammar and taste. Letters ‘toWHE EDITOR One ref ruined an enjoyable hockey game I have been a devoted minor hockey fan, and have supported the league for many years. Last Sunday, Dec. 13th, because of one power hungry referee, I may not be quite as ready to lend my support to the league. Which is unfortunate because it is not the league or that one referee that will suffer, it’s the players. A Cranbrook team was in town to play a league game against Castlegar. The game had been rescheduled for a half hour later start. This would mean that the game following would run a half hour into public skating time. This time change was OK’d by everyone involved; the arena staff, each of the four teams, and all but one official who was unable to be reached. Because of that he informed the two teams that that they would have to leave the ice early. The outcome was that the game was called after the second period, and Cranbrook was awarded the victory since they were ahead at that point. This was unfortunate because it was an exciting game and could have gone either way. This incident could have easily been prevented if the referee had kept the best interests of all the children in mind instead of his own. I’m certain that when the referee really thinks about his decision, he will realize the mistake he made. An apology to both teams involved in the cancelled game may just save face for both the Castlegar Minor Hockey Association and that particular referee. A disillusioned, yet still devoted minor hockey fan World ignoring ethnic violence in former Yugoslavia I would like to take this opportunity to com- mend Harry Killough for his analysis of the ag- onizing events in the former Yugoslavia. The former federation, which existed for over 70 years, was created after World War I by the British and French as a means of tidying up the remnants of the Austro-Hungarian and Ot- toman Empires. Since its inception, the state was dominated by the Serbs, whether by the Karageorgevitch monarchy or by the communist regime under Tito. Slovenia in particular was reluctant to be forcefully allied with the Balkan States. Indeed, Slovenia as an independent nation of 1992 would have been significantly larger had not the province of Carinthia annexed it- self to Austria in the plebiscite of 1920. The reason for this outcome was the reluc- tance of the population to ally themselves with the “Balkan mentality”. If instead of having to choose between Austria and Serbia for mas- ters, the people of Carinthia had a third option — that of belonging to an independent Slove- nia — the outcome of the 1920 plebiscite would have been far different. Nevertheless, Yugoslavia was created and functioned as well as could be expected from an arbitrary union of such diverse ethnic and reli- gious groups. World War II again severely strained this union, especially as a significant portion of the Croatian population chose to trade Germans for Serbs as their masters. With such a tormented history it was per- haps inevitable that the final breakup of the federation would not be peaceful. Prior to ac- tual secession, Slovenia and Croatia tried for many months to negotiate the terms of a loos- er alliance with the federal government, with no progress whatsoever. anyone could have predicted, Serbia would not give up its position of privilege vol- untarily. From the first brutal actions by the Federal Army in Slovenia in June 1991, to the much more devastating onslaught on Croatia later that year, to the current butchery in Bosnia, the pattern was predictable. In retaining control of the Federal Army, Serbia was able to wage a war of devastation against former republics who were able to re- cover very little of the armament that had once belonged to all. Under the pretext of protecting the Serb minorities in Croatia and Bosnia, the might of the army was used to extend the bor- ders of Serbia into those states to where cur- rently 30 percent of Croatia and 70 percent of Bosnia have been overrun and the residents ei- ther exterminated or forcefully relocated. One only needs to look at a map to see the future course of events — there are still Kosovo and Macedonia to deal with later. To succeed in this power play, the various strategists (politicians, army brass, indepen- dent war lords) have been fanning the flames of ethnic hatred by perpetrating atrocities against the common people. It is very tragic that we have to witness such savagery in what is supposed to be an enlight- ened age. It is even more tragic that the rest of the world has chosen to turn away from the real is- sues which are here at stake: whether democ- racy and self determination are principles which are to be supported, and outright ag- gression against what are now sovereign states is not to be opposed. As the commander of the UN forces at Sara- jevo admitted Dec. 5, the UN effort in the for- mer Yugoslavia has been a dismal failure. It would not have been so, had the world powers decided very early that aggression against a helpless people would not be tolerat- ed in a society which had learned hard lessons from condoning such actions before. Sadly one must recognize that very little has changed from the late 1930s. W.O. Volovsek Castlegar © Norman continued from page 7 The News editorial position? It called Smecher the “most compe- tent councillor Castlegar has” and claimed she was “submarined by her cohorts.” Would someone please explain to me how Smecher can be called “the most competent councillor Castlegar has” after having writ- ten such a ludicrous report? There was no mention of her poor judgment, lack of consulta- tion, insensitiveness to another elected body and a whole host of other problems. But back to the issue at hand: the RDCK appointment. I don’t have any problem with The News supporting Smecher, as long as it can back it up. Unfortunately, nowhere is there any evidence for Smecher’s endorsement, other than the prob- lems that RDCK chairperson George Cady has in working with Moore. (There’s no need to get into the Cady-Moore relationship, other than to mention that Moore ran against Cady as regional chairper- son several years back and failed. There’s no love lost between them). To ask Cady to comment on Moore’s appointment is a little like asking Dan Quayle for his opinion about Murphy Brown. We are told Cady was “shocked.” But he couldn’t have been that shocked by the appoint- ment. After all, he was aware of the possibility, having called up vari- ous Castlegar councillors before- hand to solicit support for Smech- er. That is the very same kind of “backroom politicking” that Moore was accused of in The News edito- rial; the kind that was described as a “shameful display of you scratch my back I'll scratch yours.” If anything, Cady’s brand is even worse because he wasn’t even elected by Castlegar voters me he represents the Lardeau Val- ey. What's he doing lobbying here? In any case, it’s not new for Cady. He did the same thing when he ran for the head of the regional board. As reported in The News, he called up the various regional di- rectors trying to line up their sup- port. Backroom politicking? You bet. A shameful display? Depends on your point of view, doesn’t it? Nowhere in The News editorial is there mention of exactly what Smecher has accomplished for the city while sitting on the regional board. Nor any mention of the prob- lems she’s had. No mention that Smecher is a strong proponent of the $3 million regional waste management plan. (The same plan, by the way, The News slammed in an earlier edito- rial.) No mention of the fact that Smecher was a member of the re- gional committee that recom- mended whopping pay hikes. for municipal representatives last year. (Smecher and other municipal- ly-appointed directors voted them- selves $550 a month, plus $90 for each board meeting, plus $90 for each committee meeting. On top of what they already get as coun- cillors — in effect doubling their stipends). No mention that while Smech- er may get along well with Cady, the same can’t be said of her rela- tions with the local regional direc- tors. (It is no secret that the direc- tors for Area I and J feuded bitter- ly with Smecher and sought her removal.) Yet, I can’t help wondering if Moore had done the same things if she wouldn’t had been raked over the coals in the paper. I wonder if she would have been trumpeted as the most competent mayor we've had. As I said, there is a growing number of people in this commu- nity who feel The News has two standards. I would like to see the paper show them they are wrong.