I attended the Haines Borough Assembly meeting on Sept. 8 in which borough manager David Sosa gave a presentation of the proposed minor offense ordinance. During his presentation he stated how the rule of law was important to him. I am sure that over 99 percent of us would say the same.

But I believe to pass the minor offense ordinance would, in fact, be an assault on the rule of law because those representing the city stated over and over that part of the offenses listed would not be enforced. This to me is the same as selectively enforcing. For the rule of law to work, offenses must be clear and evenly enforced.

Are borough employees going to say when somebody inquires about a potential offense, “We are not enforcing that”? Or is the borough going to list in the paper which offenses they are not going to enforce? Of course not. So what is the answer? Is it to rework the offenses list then bring back the ordinance? What is the hurry?

There are others who have other issues with this ordinance and they also have merit, but the potential for selective enforcement makes me furious. Two different elected members of the Haines Borough said to me, “Don’t you trust me?”

I guess not, especially when, after those who spoke against the minor offenses ordinance had left the meeting, it was reconsidered and almost passed at that meeting. My question is: Is that the kind of action that should earn my trust? If I did similar things, would you trust me?

Leonard Dubber