LIES GOOD, TRUTH BAD? In State or Federal Parliament, if a Minister or Bureaucrat is found to have ‘knowingly mislead’ Parliament, they are expected to resign (or are forced) But apparently, in the alternative universe of the Eurobodalla Shire only those who tell the proven truth should be punished. As readers may recall, council management hired a private investigator/ barrister to investigate councillor Leslight (after several staff put in ‘code of conduct’ complaints against the councillor) His sin was to repeat widespread community concerns about councils planning department. Including the planning department withholding vital information from councillors (without naming anyone in the department, and despite having ample proof of course) Staff/ Management also put in other complaints. Such as against Councillor Liz Innes, for revealing publicly that two managers (who councillor Innes did not even name) had put in an unauthorised submission to a Parliamentary inquiry (in Councils name) Requesting powers to enter any residential premises, without the need for warrants (or any authorisation at all for that matter) These two managers even travelled to Sydney together and testified in the inquiry personally (also without councils apparent knowledge or consent). One of these same managers also apparently misled the Parliamentary inquiry in her submission, about her own actions while managing the Gerondal disability pensioner case. The complaint against councillor Innes was from this same manager! Ironically, the Mayor and his likeminded colleagues then started selling the community on supporting the Broulee Bio-certification plan (readers may recall that around 5200 residents petitioned against the LEP and Biodiversity Certification, together) Just like the LEP, these councillors (apparently falsely) claiming publicly that there was “no alternative” and “no other game in town” so they had to pass the plan, or a Broulee family would be destroyed. But all councillor’s were made aware (over a year earlier) that there was a much simpler alternative, that would cost ratepayers..well, nothing! Whereas Bio-certification was going to cost ratepayers, together with these land owners approximately $3.4 million dollars! (roughly $1.86 million from rate payers and $1.6 million from these residential land owners) What ratepayers were also not being told is that Bio-certification would normally destroy around 6 times (at a minimum) more private property than it supposedly saves! and that the cost to ratepayers was not capped at $1.86 million! The plan giving council a virtual blank cheque (forever) to top up this money, and redirect ratepayers money to their own departments. Now, if you see councillors banding together to make an unequivocally false claim (again and again) in the media, and even officially (on record) at council meetings, when all Councillors and Management know the claim is not true (even ignoring repeated reminders that it is not true) you may think that this might be called ‘deceptive and misleading conduct’ and be a serious offence, with serious consequences! But like me, you would apparently be mistaken. You see I (and others) decided to put in code of conduct complaint against one of the councillors who kept stating this (most publicly) Councillor Pollock. Councillor Pollock also being the councillor who was asked this question by a ratepayer over a year earlier. The question asked was basically; could Broulee landowners not simply ‘Bio-bank’ some of their own lands, as a viable alternative to Biodiversity Certification? (Bio-banking being a totally different process, where landowners can offsets some of their own land) The question was then passed on to councils planning department by councillor Pollock. The planning departments manager for the Broulee Biodiversity Certification plan replied that it was a viable alternative, but that councils planning department simply ‘preferred’ ‘Biodiversity Certification’ (I wonder if getting $3.4 million could have influenced their preference?) This official answer was then given to all the current councillors, and all councillors were repeatedly reminded of this answer, even while they were making public statements to the contrary. The ERA councillors (who all opposed this plan) also kept reminding the other councillors that this claim being made publicly was apparently false. But were then themselves repeatedly attacked in the media by the other councillors, and accused of being against the only option which would save this family! You can hear one of these attacks on the ABC radio interview attached. So what happened to the code of conduct complaints? Well the investigator/ barrister hired to purse staff complaints against several ERA councillors, was then also given the job of mediating these complaints against councillor Pollock, and others against the Mayor (also for apparent misleading and deceptive conduct) So anyway, I now have this barristers official reply. Appearing to admit the statements of councillor Pollock were knowingly false, and that the councillors actions were ‘a breach’ of the Code of Conduct. Yet here is her reasoning for NOT pursuing the councillor. “.., I do not consider those attending the (council) meeting or indeed the wider community (in media statements) would have in fact been misled by Councillor Pollock’s claims that “there is no alternative-no other game in town” as it is well known throughout the community that there are other options and Councillor Pollock’s words are merely his opinion of what he sees as the most viable option.” So apparently its ok to knowingly mislead council (and the wider community) if some people somewhere might know it is false? The first obvious problem with this seemingly irrational statement is that the community did not know the councillors statements were false, or that there was an alternative. How could they have known? The barrister does not say. Or attempt to back up this statement with any evidence. In fact, the only people who seemingly did know (apart from us, a handful of private individuals) were ALL the councillors, and Council’s Management (and some in the news media) So why did all these (apart from the ERA councillors) allow councillor Pollock (and others) to apparently keep misleading the community? Was this not collusion by other Councillors and Management? who are all required (by law) to correct misinformation? Remembering also that Councillor Pollock was not alone among councillors in pushing this apparently false information. The fact that the ERA councillors were apparently unsuccessful at getting this fact out in the media, means there was seemingly no coverage at all to inform the community of the far simpler cost free alternative! (If you listen to the whole ABC program on this, the alternative is not mentioned once) And even if it had been, somewhere? (which does not seem to be the case) Does this make the deliberate misleading of the whole community any more acceptable? Of the roughly $3.4 million “blackmailed” from land owners, and apparently duped out of ratepayers (for no benefit to ratepayers) council hopes to draw approximately $105 000 a year in interest from this money. Of which only approximately $5000 will be spent on maintaining locked up lands. The rest of the money, approximate $100 000 per year, will go straight into councils paper pushing departments, for administration costs and planning. Unless of course the money is lost, or there is not enough interest. Then council will keep dipping into your rates to top up this money…FOREVER! Council are also now apparently pressing ahead with the rest of the 17 areas, already identified to Bio-Certify. With South Moruya next (despite council management vehemently denying this publicly during the Broulee Bio-Cert process) Councillor Pollock was correct in saying that Biodiversity Certification is “Blackmail” (of land owners) and “a lousy piece of legislation. But I can tell you it is far more significant than just the legalization of “blackmail”. It is also the legalization of the theft and re-sale of other peoples property rights, by a criminal action called “Conversion”. The national significance of this legislation to all home and private property owners cannot be overstated. By the way, in Councillor Leslight’s case, the investigator/barrister basically stated that the truth was irrelevant! and that because the planning department was small, some people might be able to guess who he was referring to, so his general and truthful criticism of the department should be treated as a ‘personal’ attack on staff and management; and councillor Leslight should be punished, and made to apologise to management and staff…publicly! All pretence to accountability, or transparency, or justice within our council appears to have disappeared. For example, it was revealed by Mr Bernard (a retired x-Councillor) that 35 out of 40 (questions on notice) asked by members of the community in council, have not been answered. After he revealed this publicly, management simply removed the whole column in the official records (which reveals if questions have been answered at all) If Minister Constance continues to ignore this community, and all evidence of council impropriety, we will continue to reveal it here. Piece by filthy piece! (Cartoon theme)...Euromafia become Bio-Banksters
Posted on: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 05:51:36 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015