It seemed like a comment of little consequence at first, until we realized its potential meaning. In fact, at first read, we almost missed it.
In an email shared with The Hamiltonian, which on June 28th 2012, was sent from Mr. Plessel to Clr. Tom Jackson, with reference to the 10 questions on the HWT that we asked that still remain unanswered, Mr. Plessel stated "I assume we are not responding to the following”. The following being our 10 questions.
Could Mr. Plessel's assumption be based on the possibility of a common practice not to respond to questions, and he was simply reaffirming that policy? Seems unlikely.
Could Mr. Plessel's assumption be based on the nature of the questions and a hesitancy of the HWT to answer to them?
Or could it simply be something else?
We don't know and so we emailed Mr. Plessel this morning, as well as Clrs Jackson and Farr, Bob Charters, James Cimba, and Willem de Ruijter, and asked Mr. Plessel to explain that statement to us. We'll post his reply verbatim once received.
As an aside, we have also emailed some questions to Clr. Merulla, Partridge and Ferguson. We will post their answers verbatim once received.
In the interim, with the Hamilton Waterfront Trust recording a $474,000.00 loss for 2011, on the heels of predicting a surplus for 2011 as late as November, the HWT may be well advised to begin building a bridge over this troubled water. We suggest that clear and straight-forward answers to our outstanding questions, would be a good start.