"Whether that would affect your possible future employment opportunities ... I don't know, but I thought for your interest I would pass it on to you."
Naturally I was concerned with an accusation of bias, so asked why the article was biased.
"You would have to ask them - it was their opinion - I am having a meeting with one of them next week."
The accusation is laughable.
This guy likes his rivers clean but his politics dirty.
I asked him how his negative third party campaign was coming along.
"It just keeps on rolling," he said.
The campaign is playing the people, not the issues.
The week before Tom Belford complained about a short article I wrote, a snapshot about progress in signing up farmers for the dam.
He incorrectly accused me of "parroting" a council press release, when in fact I had simply reported what dam manager Andrew Newman had said at a meeting, supplemented with some numbers from a staffer.
"How long into the campaign window do you believe it is appropriate to front for the regional council, printing uncritically every press release they crank out?" Mr Belford said to me in an email.
He has long claimed the council has not divested enough information to the public, but now he wants them to shut up so his is the only voice.
"Normal practice is for council staff to cease propagandising on behalf of their elected bosses during the election run-up ... they've had two years and 10 months to do that. Should be sticking to official notices at this point."
A free copy of Mr Belford's magazine BayBuzz arrived in my letterbox on Sunday.
On page one was a shameless vote-for-me editorial. Priceless!
