The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

The first delegate received a resounding round of applause from the rather large public audience, but the mayor found this not to be in the keeping with council rules and insist- ed no further show of public support. As she put it, that could make some who disagreed with the delegates views to feel uncomfortable. As I looked around the chamber the only ones that did not clap were, without exception, the councillors and the méyér. And u I see it, being a bit unwmfonable at times comes with their territory. lhope. but Twas not ton This new park goes very deep into the heart and pride of the citizens of Waterloo, but I feel an unheard major- ity are truly dismayed that something which had become affectionately known as the Millennium Park, ifnot at least in name, but in spirit, has now suddenly become officially RIM Park Even in the lawsuits launched by the city in regards to the leasing netrrtia- tions, the park is named the Millennium Park. The new name "RIM" is the name of the private cor- porate fundraiser that contributed the largest amount of money. In total RIM employees' contribution of $2 million, which pending the outcome of law- suits, will amount to less than one per cent of the total cost. The people of Waterloo will be by far the major financial contributor to this project. mo delegates presented their arguments to the mayor and her council for keeping the name Millennium Park. or at least allowing the name selection process to go to a public forum. believe there comes a time when I true leaders can distinguish them- ves when they are not afraid to admit when they are wrong and have the strength and courage to correct the mistake even though that may not be the easiest course to steer. Unfortunately, I did not see these characteristics in our elected Mayor Lyme Woolstencroft or the city Coun- cillors at Monday night's council meeting Oct. 22). What I am referring to is the controversial naming of Waterloo's newest recreational facility. It's time for council to show leadership You said it WHAT ARE YOU DOING FOR HALLOWEEN? (ASKED AT SIR EDGAR BAUER SCHOOL) QUESTION "l'm getting lots of N candy. I'm going as a l lion, because they run _ real fast." I , w? "’ ‘J <3 M . , Dustin Ustman The mayor's second comment was that it had been a mistake for the city to have referred to the park as the Millennium Park before an official namehadbeenghmmit.Thissounds like a bit of back paddling as her councillor-laden canoe approaches the falls Nrhaps it we Thislfeltwasan issueweallknew and feel in our pocket books every day and one of the reasons we trusted our elected officials to obtain the best financing possible for such a project (but that's really another story), such that this dream could become a teali- ty for the city, one we could live with in these times of reduced funding from the province. Back to the mayor's point. I guess knowing what we know now about the real costs. we need all the funding we can get. It appears the real funding battles are not going to be over lack of private funds hom good corporate citizens, but rather in the courts, as a result of some very poor contract review and understanding or lack thereof, from our cities linam cial people responsible for the iinanc. ing deals they signed. However to rename the entire park after one com- pany who contributed only what may amount to less than one per cent of the total cost, was at the expense of the public's true desire to have a name reflective of the original intent and spirit of the project. that being "Millennium Park: I think the public would not have objected to RIM being the name of a portion of the park, facilities or buildings, but not the entire park in years to come, when corporate RIM may no longer be, peo- ple will wonder if the name RIM Park was because it was at the city's rim? However Millennium would stand the test of time unchallenged. Prior to passing final vote, Mayor Woolstencroft presented her com- ments on the name issue. First she pointed out that funding from the province to municipalities has been greatly reduced over the years sure, the mayor also noted the dele- gates' comments and the passion in their delivery. and not just the "disor- derly" public. "My grandma is com- ing to my house and we're giving out candy. I'm going to be a witch and scare anyone who comes to my door." ) THE CHRONICLI Allison Brown COMMENT I guess it's really up to the mayor and her council. Are they really lead- ers - do they lead their city or merely react to events around them? Unfortunately, the old saying "what's in a name" may come home to most, and Mayor Lynne Woolstencroft may only be remembered, or even worse, Synonymous with the name RIM. Of course true leaders can and do effect thanNstanameonasitplalso believe that the city can correct this whole name issue without jeopardiz- ing future corporate funding and if it does then from those who would withhold or withdraw their funds then these are not the people we should be seeking funds from. I believe even RIM employees would future indirectly through that ofthe tiityItruybelievetheydoitmrmore The mayor's third comment to the effect that we cannot go back on our commitment to name the park after the major corporate donator or we will be seen as untrustworthy and loose future fundraising support from the business community is truly a misunderstanding of why these busi- nesses really support fundraising. They don't do it for the name, sure recognition is nice, but many con. tribute without renaming building or entire projects. a case in point, recent grants to the University of Waterloo from private citizens. Corporate donations are part of buildinga strong community that can support and enable such business to prosper and grow. [t'saninvestmentintheirown unofficially called this because it reflected what the name should really be, what perhaps the original intent was. There is no denying for a project of this scope, the name means not just something but a lot to the people of this area. I think the council got it right the first time, and I truly believe they know it, and if they were not afraid to do the right thing as opposed to the politiially right thing true leadership would emerge. 'Tm going to have a Halloween party, then go trick or treating. I'm going as a zombie princess. It's a really cool costume" "l'm going around the whole city. I'm going " Sonic (the hedge- hog) because he's really fast, and goes 100 km per hour." Tessa Kohl" “WHOM. “amino My oldest daughter is the same age as the Merkley triplets The thought of not seeing her or her sister would be almost too much for me to bear. but that would not give me the right to abduct them. Vandenelson had no such right either. despite last week's verdict The criminal trial did not hear why the family court judge had so severely restricted Vandenelsen’s access, nor did they hear why he had suggested that her access might be cut off completely Such rulings are fairly extraordinary. particularly when it is the mother whose access is in question. There must be concerns about Vandenelsen's parenting concerns that can hardly have been allayed by last year's abduction. To his credit, Merkley is refusing to fight the custody battle in public. declining to tell the media exactly what concerns he has about Vandenelsen's par- enting or emotional state. Van Drunen argued that Vandenelsen did not want to let the legal system take its course in deciding custody, because she was- tit getting her way. "She won't accept reality because the court might decide she doesn't deserve to have access" Furthermore, "the harm inflicted far exceeded any harm that was avoided (by the abduction). The harm was so great, that to compare it to any benefit that was done by taking the children is impossible." Appeals need to be based on an error in legal process, rather than simply public disdain for a jury's decision. In my non-expert opinion, at least one significant legal error came in Justice James Donnelly's charge to the jury. Donnelly told the jury that they must decide whether Vandenelsen took the children away because she honestly believed they were in emotional harm. "The court must be satisfted that the taking of any young person was necessary to protect the young person from danger of immi- nent harm." After the verdict, Merkley was critical of the charge to the jury. "He essentially said you should find her not guilty... it was incredibly one-sided." I strongly believe that Donnelly is misinterpreting a law that is meant to refer to physical harm, not just a lack of access on the part of one parent. Vandenelsen told the jury she feared a judge was about to cut off all access to the children (she was already restricted to seeing them every other Saturday due to an earlier court ruling). There was no allegation that the children were abused by their father or that the was an unfit parent. "The chil- dren were living in a home with a caring and loving and capable father who was meeting all their needs," said Crown attorney HenryVan Drunen. "The children lost their home. They lost their bedrooms, their toys. their little friends They lost their schools, their classmates They lost their oma." Merkley is absolutely right. Family lawyers who have been advising their clients about the legal consequences of abducting their children in contravene tion of custody orders are now publicly wondering whether that advice is still correct. Police have insisted that they will still enforce the law, but it's dimcult to see how they can if this decision is allowed to stand. That's why the Crown must appeal the decision. And why was Vandenelsen found not guilty? Because, accord- ing to the My, she was acting out of "necessity". She had pleaded not guilty by reason of necessity to the offense of abducting the children, saying she was acting in their best interests (that is, she was pre-empting a possible ruling that her already-restricted access to the children would be cut off entirely). After the jury deliberated for 12 hours and announced their verdict, Vandenelsen was understandably jubilant. "Justice was served," she said 't think the jury heard that my actions spoke of the love I have for my children." Vandenelsen's former husband, Craig Merkley had a different view. "I think they just declared open season on anyone who wants to abduct their children." he told reporters who inter- viewed him outside the courthouse. "It sets an incredible prece- dent. Anyone who feels they should 7 take their children and run has now got " r t . j the tools to do it. There's no some MillMI } [Elk quence. If there's an abduction, what's MI F“' the point of going to try to bring the . abductor back? They're going to get lk _ Sf off." . ast week, a jury in Stratford, ON did the unthinkable. They hcquitted Carline Vandenelsen. a woman who admitted bducting her three children a year ago and fleeing with them for three months (at which time she was arrested). During that three months. the eight-year-old triplets were taken to Nova Scotia, the United States, Panama and Mexico, at one point being hidden in the trunk of a car to avoid detection. Disturbing verdict should be appealed SCOTT PIATKOWSKI