Joe Murtagh, of The Dart­mouth Canvas Factory, Foss Street, Dartmouth, writes:

The directors and supporters of the Dartmouth Business Improvement District frequently remind us that the BID was created in Dartmouth by due democratic process, as indeed it was.

It is therefore all the more alarming that Nigel Way, chairman of the BID, should attempt to interfere with the democratic process of the local council elections.

For the chairman of the BID to personally put up posters around the town requesting people not to vote for an individual because of that person’s questions regarding the running of the town’s tourist information centre is as breathtakingly arrogant as it is mind-numbingly stupid.

One of the posters was even placed outside the door to the polling station on the day of the election. Not exactly what anyone in their right mind would refer to as a ‘prank’.

It is quite incredible that, following Mr Way’s confession in your paper, he has not seen fit to resign from his position as chairman of the BID.

Furthermore, I am at a loss to understand the action, or inaction, of the other BID directors.

What the chairman has done has completely and utterly compromised his integrity. It would appear that the BID directors are also prepared to compromise their integrity too.

This is not a letter in defence of Dave Cawley, the prospective councillor, nor is it a prosecution of Mr Way. I do not dislike either individual, in fact I like them and know that they have both achieved a great deal for the town over the years and still have more to offer.

This is a letter in defence of the democratic process. If what has occurred is really acceptable to the town, then I assume that at the next council elections we will have the Guildhall littered with posters displaying personal attacks on all and sundry.

Businesses and residents in the town are appalled at what has happened and talk privately of their disappointment with Mr Way’s actions.

Many people also have grave concerns over the running of the BID and also the TIC but do not feel confident to state these publicly any longer.

The chairman and the directors of the BID should not take the silence from the town as an assumption that the residents are tacitly condoning their chairman’s actions.

We now discover that the Business Forum, chaired by Paul Reach, is looking to increase its membership but has rejected Mr Cawley’s application to join the forum, in spite of Mr Cawley running a business in Dartmouth.

Apparently Mr Cawley is not acceptable to the Business Forum either. Obviously, Mr Cawley should not ask any questions of anyone at all.

So now two organisations that purport to represent businesses in the town have chosen to be undemocratic in their actions, in order to avoid being questioned.

My questions to you all are: Do we no longer wish to retain democracy in Dartmouth; can we not agree to disagree on occasions without personalities getting in the way and damaging the town; and is it no longer safe to question any aspect of the running of the town?

I have no wish to support either organisation if this is their attitude.

Our business voted in favour of the BID as we thought that the concept of working together to support improvements to the town to be an excellent idea.

Beyond paying the bill to the BID each year, as is compulsory under the democratic process, I no longer wish to have any involvement in the BID until the chairman resigns from being a director and I would suggest that all of us make a careful decision as to how involved we wish to be in either the BID or the Business Forum if this remains their stance.

Unfortunately the BID’s one- and-a-half-year history is now littered with errors and mistakes. Should the chairman remain involved in the BID, that might well prove the biggest mistake of all.

In three and a half years’ time, the BID will be looking for your vote to stand for a further five-year term.

Obviously they will again be making use of the democratic process to ensure their continued existence.

Don’t you just love the irony!