Rachel Davis, the only Carnegie Board member speaking up for Bill's rights.

Ethel Whitty, the Carnegie's Director who works for the City of Vancouver, was recently interviewed on a CBC Radio program called the Early Edition.( http://members.nowpublic.com/politics/ethel-whitty-says-simpson-out-because-worksafe-complaint )  In that interview, she was responding to the previous day's interview with William Simpson, an elected Carnegie Board member who has been barred from entering the Carnegie building for linking his own website to a blog which has been critical of the Carnegie staff and patrons.  He was accompanied by Rachel Davis, also a Board member as well as a community activist, who has persistently supported William in his efforts toward justice.  You can catch that audio interview here: ( http://members.nowpublic.com/politics/barred-carnegie-director-talks-cbc ).

Some people commented to CBC's Talkbalk line, 604 662 6690, after the interviews and you can hear them here: ( http://members.nowpublic.com/politics/carnegie-members-respond-cbc-interviews ), and add your own, if you like.

William was not only barred from the building; previous to that and his election to the board, he was barred from the Learning Centre, where he was falsely accused of being the Carnegie-critical "blogger", who is known as Reliable Sources and can be read at www.downtowneastsideenquirer.blogspot.com.  There are many unanswered questions about both of these "barrings", but it seems the most confusing is the barring from the building issue. 

In that barring by the City, represented by General Manager of Community Services, Jacquie Forbes-Roberts, who Ethel Whitty reports to, William was given a letter on the Carnegie front steps by Ms. Whitty which was written on City letterhead and signed by Ms. Forbes-Roberts.  He was given this letter just prior to the newly elected Carnegie Board (of which he is a member) meeting to elect the new officers, effectively denying him his right to participate in this democratic process.

First of all this letter indicates, among other things, that the reason William was barred from the Carnegie building was, "your site links to a blog with numerous inaccuracies and allegations of misconduct, and unwarranted invasions of privacy of other patrons and staff at the Centre.".  When host Stephen Quinn pointed out this fact to Ms. Whitty in the CBC interview, she interrupted him to say that no, "the situation with Mr. Simpson arose because of a BC Worksafe Complaint by an employee". 

The letter William received, says nothing at all about a BC Worksafe complaint, and not only that, William was not informed by Worksafe that a complaint had been lodged by them against him.  After some research and emailing with Worksafe, and getting William to write to Worksafe himself, Rachel Davis was told that if a complaint had been lodged, William would have been notified, and William was not notified.

So what is Ms. Whitty talking about with this seeming contradiction about the Worksafe issue?  What is Ms. Forbes-Roberts saying, and why does her letter not mention anything about Worksafe?  Are these two City staffers on the same page?

Aside from this "confusion", between these two City employees responsible for the Carnegie, about the reason for William Simpson's barring, the letter itself and what else it is saying besides the "linking" bit, is another issue needing some explanation.  An explanation from a legal mind would be good, since apparently the City's legal staff were consulted before serving Simpson with the letter.  Perhaps William will make the letter available to the public, and a volunteer legal eagle will come forward to help William and the average Carnegie member understand what the heck is really going on here.

Lots more to come.