Dear Editor,
I’m shocked and beyond a loss for words over Chris Ram’s jab at me for the position I have taken on the Muri PGGS. The contention of Mr Ram, for whom I have tremendous respect, that the timing of my letter “seemed improper, conveying the impression that it was intended to forestall any wider discussion within the Chamber” is unfortunate and disappointing.
A few things worth noting, Editor:
Firstly, I’m never one to shy away from or avoid a debate on issues that are pertinent to my role as Chamber head.
I welcome open discourse and it is the hallmark of all official positions taken by the Georgetown Chamber.
Secondly, my views on this issue first appeared in an article written by an SN reporter and not in the form of a letter, and it represented my personal position on the matter after several discussions with persons familiar with the issue, including Mr Ram.
Thirdly, the Chamber meeting to which Mr Ram referred was in fact held after proper notice was sent to all members. Mr Ram, through his company, indicated that he could not attend and sent his views in writing on the issue. There was no attempt to be clandestine about the discussions at that meeting and had Mr Ram attended he would have been afforded the opportunity, just like any other member, to voice his opinion and sway anyone attending. In the end, no one view forms the official position of the Chamber and that is done based on consistency with the Chamber’s Competi-tiveness
Manifesto and the majority position of those attending the meetings.
Moreover, the Chamber is yet to ventilate on this issue fully and articulate a firm official position. It may or may not do so in the future.
In closing, I still stand by my earlier position on this matter.
Yours faithfully,
Clinton Urling
