-~ 2.
discovered. the source of the problem was an extreme back oj:
of work resulting from the strike. The ‘only connection
between the two matters is that in the course of completiiny:
work for Hessrs. Lee and Melnechenko, Mr. Peters rappuned to
observe one of the missing ~poods in- their office. This
purely fortuitous circumstance is hardly the foundation of
the kind of sinister plot alleged.

Mr. Rankin alleges in his column of May 26th, 1981, that the
plan. holder was added to the list of missing goods only
after Hr. Peter's visit to the offices of Lee and
Melnechenko. This is untrue.

It has been suggested that a more appropriate action would
have been a telephone call to Messrs. Lee and Melnechento.
It has also been suggested that Council Should have been
informed before any action was taken. in fact, the investi-~
gating officer specifically requested that no one be
informed pending completion of the investigation. It would
not have been a proper course of conduct for any official to
interfere with the police investigation by disregarding, such
instructions. Furthermore, Council is responsible for the
formation of policy, not the administration of City
affairs. It was therefore not appropriate in these cireum-
stances for Council to be consulted.

Finally, our reference to the return of the goods ia not a
"clunsy effort to silence Messrs. Lee and Melnechenko". in
fact goods valued at $270 were returned to City Hall. am
certainly not in any way embarrassed by this recovery
taxpayers! property.

/sb

vj a
“ Bipegoe hey Co /

f :
‘

7 fete mel

é