Regarding the editorial in Saturday's Expositor, "T. R. U. E.'s perspective," please allow us to explain what we did and why.
When we talked about presenting the topic of unbalanced and uninformed reporting on native issues, we decided that since the mainstream slant on these issues is already in the public domain and well known by way of mainstream reporting, it would be our opportunity to get the small market, but intimately informed and connected, native media to present the side of the story that the mainstream public did not get.
Although this choice has been construed by some, including The Expositor, as one-sided, from our perspective, counterbalancing the mainstream's "one-sided" coverage was the entire purpose of the meeting.
Once again we thank Expositor managing editor David Judd for coming and for addressing the audience from his vantage point. Despite the little kick in the butt he gave us in the editorial, The Expositor does support what we are doing and we appreciate that very much.
Just for the record, once again all city councillors were invited to attend -- as we do for each and every one of our T. R. U. E. informational meetings -- and, once again, no one from city hall bothered. We received an e-mail from Coun. James Calnan who sent his regrets and said he was spending the evening with his kids but wished us well.
We support Calnan's courage to change his mind when confronted with new information. That is exactly why T. R. U. E. exists and that is exactly why city councillors should come and get educated before they make rash and desperate decisions without a complete understanding of the issues.
We say, drop those injunctions and the charges related to them and open dialogue. You just might learn something too.