Once again the Coalition to Keep BT Dump Free have refused an invitation to meet with anyone that would seem to have a link with the Dart Group.

They say there is absolutely no point in it as any discussions would “legitimise an illegitimate” entity.

They have inferred that the recent study executed by Cardno ENTRIX (CE) is biased because it was paid for by Dart.

“The conflict of interest is glaring”, said Coalition leader Mr. Gregg Anderson.  “How can the CE ‘study’ be considered objective and independent when the dump evaluator is chosen and paid by the dump proponent?  As well, they’re asking for the public’s input on their whitewash, but the people were never asked for their input on the need to relocate the George Town (GT) landfill, nor on the choice of [Bodden Town] BT as the new site to be contaminated.”

I have to question the first statement Mr. Anderson says, “The conflict of interest is glaring [because] the dump evaluator is chosen and paid by the dump proponent.”

Not so. A consultant is a consultant and by his profession MUST be impartial whoever pays him. That is the code of his profession. If that is not true he could not practice as a consultant.

I was a qualified consultant in the building profession and I had to provide an opinion based on my professional ability NOT on who my paymaster was. If that were to sway my opinion in anyway I would immediately be thrown out of the professional association I was a member of.

It is like saying because a judge is appointed by the Crown he will judge every case in the Crown’s favour!

Cardno ENTRIX is a worldwide and respected environmental and natural resource management consultancy with a reputation they have to keep. Do you think a company with such a track record would risk it on a report that they know is going to have a very public and media showing?

I am most disturbed that the Coalition can publicly voice CE’s relationship with Dart to be “unethical” and say it is “scandalous” they were actually “selected and paid” to promote the dump project.

It is one thing to be opposed to the Bodden Town Waste Management Facility, and many of their objections to the project are valid, especially how the site was selected, but, in my opinion, they have made their case far less positive by these statements. It has, for me, now cast a doubt on everything the Coalition has said.

The Coalition has accused CE of being biased. Are they saying they are not? The Coalition will not even sit down and listen. The grounds for this? Legitimacy.

And what exactly does “legitimacy” mean in this context?

Al Gore refused to attend a debate with George W. Bush because he said doing so would lend legitimacy to the Texas governor’s quest for the presidency. This showed contempt for the ability of regular citizens to make an informed decision.

The Coalition here is making exactly the same mistake.

The Coalition want us, the citizens of the Cayman Islands, to back them in fighting the Dart Dump proposal but throw contempt upon us by not allowing us to make our own minds up. If the Coalition went to a meeting with CE it would legitimise CE and they would lose our support.

I think they are very wrong in not accepting CE’s offer that I believe was made professionally and with no malice aforethought. CE genuinely wanted to sit down and DISCUSS it. If the Coalition had done this it would not have legitimised anything but could have made the Coalition’s case stronger.

The Coalition would have been seen they were prepared to listen. They were not swayed in their resolve to still say “not in my backyard”.

This condescending attitude that CE is too biased and devious to meet in debate raises a more fundamental question: Namely, what does the Coalition really think of the notion that us regular citizens — people who go to work every day, beget and raise our children and try to make ends meet — actually get to be the ones who make the decision to back the Coalition?

The Coalition seems to feel that Cayman’s public can be better nudged to making the right decision — theirs — if they are confronted only with a solid front of proponents, while opponents eager to gainsay them are marginalised and ignored.

What do you think? I am prepared to listen and there is no thought of legitimising anyone or anything if you do.