On July 8, we published a long explainer on the Langley City code of conduct dispute. Two things in it were wrong.
The scope of the court challenge. The article said Councillor Delaney Mack's Charter challenge targeted only the "positive manner" part of the bylaw, and that the accuracy findings would survive even if she won. That was incorrect. Her petition asks the court to strike all of section 32(a). If she wins in full, all four findings would fall, not one.
Her earlier complaints. The article said Councillor Mack had filed complaints under the same section she is now challenging. She did not. Her complaints against two other councillors were brought under different sections of the bylaw.
We have also removed a passage comparing accuracy in municipal political communication to political developments in the United States. It was written to support a point that turned out to rest on the first error, and removing it was the right call.
The reporting in that article was built on primary documents. The errors were not in the reporting. They were in the analysis built on top of it. That is a process gap, and it is on us.
The rest of the article stands, including the account of what happened at the May 4 meeting, the $500,000 legal budget, the dispute over access to the investigation reports, and the nine orders Councillor Mack is asking the court to grant.
We remain proud of that piece. Getting two things wrong does not change that. Refusing to fix them would have.
The Langley Union is funded by readers, not advertisers. The only thing we are selling is that what you read here is accurate, and that when it is not, you will hear about it from us first. Corrections go out through every channel the original went out through. Every time.