And Yet Again I Am The Skin In The Game

Howdy dear availees...just plowin'-on today with the doggo stuff...ummm, no fancy entry today, just off we go...

Skin In The Game:...looks like being a frequent feature in these dog-related posts...it's just over 4 years since I looked-up the South East Animal Welfare League website, and chose the dog that was going cheap...(ooo, take as given the appropriate amount of 'birds go cheep' jokes, but 'cheap' usually means the hound is unmanageable and/or not long for getting drop-kicked across the rainbow bridge-Ed)...and in my doggos' case, both...I hadn't had a dog since mid-2015, but someone politely pestered me to get one (thankyou you) and I saw ol' mate here and rang SEAWL and said I'm coming to get that one...and when I first met him he was fairly excited-manic, but super-friendly, not at all afraid or aggressive...he was fairly quiet and very well behaved around me, not scared but clearly nervous...(well at 4yrs old he was house-trained, didn't chew stuff, etc, but around dogs and particularly at dog park, he was awful-Ed)...indeed he was, first coupla' times, we'd go in the gate and he was just going at other dogs...he never bit or even tried to bite, it was all that alpha-dominant open-mouthed grabbing stuff and barking, etc...

If you've been around dogs a bit you'll know there's several stages of open-mouthed dominant behaviours, from standing next to each other and baring teeth and growling, to snaps at each other, to full-on sparring with lotsa' noise and fury but no-one's actually biting anyone...(and any number of dogs, this 'ere knucklehead, him included, they go hell-for-leather at each other for fun, and grab and pull and it's all teeth and growls, etc, and they're havin' a ball and ne'ry a drop a' blood shed-Ed)...well I guess it's like how animals pick-up their young and carry them around, they bite-down to a point that is just grabbing, not biting...but we digress...

There's 2 main points here...my dog was deeply imperfect when I got him, and I was soon asking myself 'what have I done?', etc, but I wasn't going to take him back...when I got him (December 2019) he'd already been in the SEAWL shelter (pound) for a year and had been adopted and returned 3 times; I was his 5th or even 6th home...but it was quite literally just a matter of affection, persistence, and going to dog park and keeping him on a lead for probably the first 4-6 weeks, but trying to be there when no-one else was so he could run...(well he's a working dog breed and so he's gotta' be able to run, and like, every day-Ed)...absolutely, and the Hastings Cunningham Reserve Dog Park was the only fenced-in place available...and he was already slowly starting to improve when one fine day he got told-off a coupla' times by a young female kelpie who was not havin' any of his crap, and it was like someone flicked a switch...from literally that day on I could let him off the lead, and he was fine...

He did, however, immediately shift his focus/energies to running back-and-forth along the big/small parks' adjoining boundary fence, manically barking at other dogs, or even if there wasn't a dog there...and that went on for nearly 6 months...he'd done this when there weren't any dogs in big park, but now he'd all but ignore the dogs in the park with him...and he can still be like that, especially when there's a mower anywhere in the vicinity...(I reckon it was pound trauma/muscle memory stuff-Ed)...indeed, it's what he'd done for 12mths so it was just what he was used to doing...these days he rarely chases other dogs but he's still mad for mowers, and some trucks, but he's very choosy with the trucks...sometimes, sometimes he stands there and just barks at the sky...sometimes he's yelling "OI!" at me...sometimes, he's just happy...he's a happy dog...

An Old Dog Knows Tricks:...and from day one is house-broken and doesn't walk on the carpets or go into the main bedroom after being told only once, and doesn't chew stuff so I can leave him in the car while I do stuff, etc...and don't panic, I'm hyper-aware of the heat/stress issues, etc, and always park in shade and leave windows cracked or even right down, etc, and if it's getting a bit hot, nuthin's so urgent it can't wait 'til the cool of tomorrow morn...(and he's just extraordinary with li'l puppers-Ed)...indeed, one of his most endearing features is the sheer amount of crap he will tolerate from a puppy...most older dogs are reasonably tolerant, but my bad boy lets them leap on him and chew on him and constantly jump-at and/or lick his mouth...(yeah, what is going on with that mouth thing?-Ed)...I don't know, but they all seem keen to do it...last week, he was lying in the shade and a Jack Russell pup was bouncin'-off him like a trampoline, tryin' to get him to play...all four feet, boing! boing! and Ol' Dog completely ignored it...(it was like a grandpa with a full belly on a hot Xmas arvo, and the grandkids are hassling him to come outside and play with the new cricket set-Ed)...that sir, is exactly what it was like, hilarious...

And whilst I do not claim to speak for anyone but myself, it is exactly that sort of interaction that brings so much genuine laughter for dog park patrons...(well the boing! boing! business certainly did!-Ed)...yes it did, and he's just one doggo, there's mad doggos everywhere at dog park...so we use HCR Dog Park almost everyday, and it's why I do things like move the sand to 1) clear the path, but also, 2) to address the issue of dogs hurting their feet by moving that sand to along the fenceline...I identified this issue to MGCC, in writing in January 2023, requesting they put sand along the fence...2 months later I hadn't even had a reply, so I did it...sorry, I know we covered this in the previous post, but for some reason I feel the need to remind some peeps that 1) it wasn't just me that was concerned, and that MGCC knew but ???, so I and another gentleman did it...and everyone thanked us, and many expressed surprise about the Moses-like re-appearance of the gleaming white section of path they didn't know existed... 

And 2) I rarely just whinge about stuff...(although you do do that-Ed)...whinge? whine? bitch? call it what you will...(oh, okay, can I have errr 'whiny little bitch' then please?-Ed)...hey now! whoa there! and putting "please" on the end doesn't make it any better either...(nah nah, go' bless go' bless, the MGCC/HCR Public Housing thing, moving the sand stuff, trying to tell MGCC about that and other issues, eg, the shelter debasco, tryin' to edjumicates ya'self about what's happening with doggos' access to the Blue Lake Sports Fields, and so on, I cheerfully concede, you do not just whinge, you tend to get right amongst it-Ed)...yeah, but even then it's actually very seldom confrontation when dealing with the "notorious" and "controversial" (both The Border Watch) bastard that is me...(yeah yeah, and even then it's never threats or yelling or whatevs-Ed)...indeed...(I mean, it can be brutal, like, really brutal-Ed)...I cannot and will not apologise for that...(I've seen supposedly powerful men literally terrified 'cos you're standing there talking to them-Ed)...and that's all I've done, use my words, it's their own guilt that does any perceived 'threatening'...we digress...

During the COVID lockdown(s) HCR dog park was the only 'public facility' still open...personally it was a huge thing to be able to run pupper, and even more importantly, for me, have some extended albeit casual human contact...as people do, both dog parks have loose social groups generally based on who happens to be there at whatevs time, eg, school pick-up time...(you mean like the way the Blue Lake Aquifer Tours cafe thingy that Gary and Trish Turner used to run, along with the actual tours, all from that li'l annex/shelter thingy up at the Blue Lake, like how that was the focal point for numerous social/casual groups, let alone an internationally renowned tourism experience, until MGCC vindictively and deliberately shut them down and booted them out, you mean like that?-Ed)...mate, do not get me started on what a self-defined pack a' low mongrels MGCC are in how they've treated the Turners, and in turn the broader Mt Gambier community...again, my opinion, solely my opinion, I sure-as-shreck don't need no-one tellin' me not nuthin' about how I feel about MGCC...    

I've included the Aquifer Tours stuff because 1) it is a perfect example of just exactly what sort of malicious and disgraceful conduct Mt Gambier City Council is prepared to engage in, and 2) because this specific issue should never be forgotten or forgiven.

And so my Skin In The Game re Dog Park is as any true dermis must be...(que?-Ed)...layered, it's layered...(what, like an onion?-Ed)...no no, don't start that with me...(well you're the one who keeps sayin' "shreckin'"-Ed)...yeah, fair dues...anyhoos, my first point is that my Seeping Sack A' Satanic Gasses was at the SEAWL shelter for a year in total, often several months at a time, and when MGCC so graciously pulled their funding from the shelter earlier this year, and started unlawfully sticking dogs in a garden shed in the carpark of the Council depot...(on a 3-Day Kill Order-Ed)...indeed, that was the very genuine concern in the entire community, not just in the dog parks...(well there was that protest outside of MGCC's meeting back in July-Ed)...another great point, community-wide concern at the SEAWL funding debasco (debacle meets fiasco), but we'll get into all that next post, I'm just trying to explain why I'm so all-in on this dog park stuff...(I just thought that's how you are with all this stuff, especially with this 'ere blog-Ed)...another good call, but again we digress...

So it's the issue of MGCC's appallingly deceitful conduct on almost every issue related to SEAWL and how that directly relates to whether or not my amazing wunderhund would even be alive, and secondly, how important enclosed but open spaces are important for dogs...(and their owners-Ed)...well yes, owners first, dogs are their responsibility, but you know what I mean...I would likely not have the truly amazing mutt I am so fortunate to have, and HCR Dog Park has been a huge part of that...

Only recently have we been enjoying the beautiful tree-lined avenue and parkland surrounds that is the Blue Lake Sports Park Parkland...and I'm gunna call it a parkland 'cos it may only cover 32hectares, much of which is open sports fields, and have a highway running along one boundary...(and a mill down another-Ed)...but there's just enough mature trees and associated bird life, etc, to give that sense of canopy...(and when it rains there's that beautiful Eucalyptus smell heavy in the air-Ed)...yeah, and the Swifts darting and Willy Wagtails twitching around as we walk, hoping we scare-up some morsel for them, heaps a' wattle-birds and magpies of course, parrots and lorikeets, and the corellas have arrived...and I've heard but not yet seen kookaburras, not least-of-all 'cos I've also had to spend a fair bit of time there looking at the ground because of the numerous dog craps there-abouts...it's not catastrophic, but I'm doing all my walking around the peripherals and I see enough and I know there's craps left in the diamonds some times...

As per shreckin' usual, it's most dog owners do clean-up after their mutts, might occasionally miss one, etc, but some people are clearly not bothering...and sometimes that happens in the diamonds...(and an occasional miss amongst the gum trees is very different to having your dog inside the fields and missing that-Ed)...excellent point Ed, there's a very big difference, when in the fields dog owners should be watching their dog 100%, your view can't get blocked by a tree, etc...and I absolutely understand that some people want to be able to run their dogs in a fenced area...(can I just butt in and leap ahead a bit-Ed)...sure...('cos you made the point that the Northern boundary is defined by the Jubilee Highway, a four-laned 80kph zone, but that boundary fence is only 1m high and the wire starts a foot from the ground, it's almost pointless against dogs-Ed)...yeah, and for many reasons like that, it's mostly just that dogs need to be run, and their owners feel/know they don't have the recall, etc, so an enclosed area is essential...(yeah, and that MGCC 'Plan' photo below, that refers to "Off-Leash" along that boundary-Ed)...yeah, well spotted, we'll get to that...

As is my want, I've spoken to various people about the BLSPP sport/dogs issue, and I absolutely sympathise with the sporting groups who have very genuine problems with dog crap...it does get left on the fields, and then when people do pick it up they sometimes inexplicably tie it to the fence and leave it there instead...(I've seen that, even at HCR dog park, where the bins are right there-Ed)...I know, baffling, and bins are another issue...as best I can tell only 3-4 bins across the entire BLSPP are actually MGCC bins cleared by Council, which I think means that sports groups pay for the other bins, which have to be regularly cleared 'cos there's dog crap-bags in all of them...(I've walked it all several times now and there's places where people have picked-up after their dog, but then thrown the crap-filled bag into, say, the outside corner of a baseball dugout, along with the several others already thrown there-Ed)...walked it today and found 2 craps and 2 craps bagged but then just dropped on the ground, all within 50m along the outside of a baseball field fence...they weren't there 2-3 days ago...

To a lesser degree but for balance, I've also noticed increased litter around the area after sports events, and there are several very large very dead trees that must be removed...(and a shreckin' tonne of potential bushfire fuel where all that bark and branches and stuff has been dumped right the way along the Southern boundary, where the dis-used rail line is-Ed)...yes, that is a concern, the whole parkland needs some intensive TLC, but who's gunna' pay for that? MGCC? they can't even maintain the HCR Dog Parks, or don't even try, whatevs...however, the immediate issue about dog crap, that's something that everyone can be involved in, not least of all dog owners... 

Gaszilla and I have been into the baseball diamonds 3 times; the first ever time we went there, and twice whilst speaking with other dog owners...again, I am very fortunate that my pupper has excellent recall, and I regularly walk him 'Off-Leash', but I still wouldn't wanna' flush-out a wallaby...(like that time at HCR when there was a big bouncy mouse on the dis-used tennis courts-Ed)...yes, we got lucky that day, when we'd walked right up on a Swamp Wobbly, and then we all stood there like statues, until it took-off and Gasius Maximus bolted after it, but then he lost it behind the trees and turned back toward dog park...3yrs ago 2 puppers flushed a wobbly at HCR and 1 followed it out onto the Rail Trail, and was later found several kms away out at the Millicent Rd old Bunnings site, with 2 big but thankfully minor scratches down it's guts...but now, to the map!...

I found this laminated plan/map (photo below) blowing across the ground near a baseball field the morning after that stormy night...I was gunna' chuck it in a bin, but still had it in hand when back at the car, and I've still got it...if MGCC desperately need it back, they need only ask...there are some others around the BLSPP, and because I reckon I'd have noticed them sooner if they'd been put-up earlier, I reckon these only appeared fairly recently, I'd say the last coupla' weeks...apologies if I'm in error, 'cos it is kinda' important 'cos MGCC has been doin' their usual song-'n'-dance about 'Public Consultation'..(I see there's no 'Submissions End' date on there-Ed)...I hadn't noticed that, it's an interesting omission..and dear availees, it's been put to me that the 'consultation period' may have already concluded, so when MGCC actually put those signs up is important, was it only shortly before 'Consultation' ended?...I suspect but it is purely speculation...

(Yeah, it also doesn't actually mention "On-Leash areas"-Ed)...well yes it does, there in the title...(no no, in the text, that's my point-Ed)...aha, yes, I see...(it specifically differentiates between "On-Leash" and "Off-Leash", but there's no "On-Leash" area mentioned in the blurb or on the map-Ed)...ermmm, yeah, not sure what's up with that...(do ya' reckon that it might be that it's s'posed to say 'Red areas will be on-leash areas'?-Ed)...yeah, that's not what it says though...(and what happened to the previous plan for the HCR Dog Parks improvements and a second park at Conroe Heights?-Ed)...well recalled sir, 'cos I have seen the original response from MGCC after a dog park patron wrote to them a coupla' years back, about a range of issues, and including several specific requests...there were requests for path/entrance.access improvements, eg, bitumen; for a small water feature for dogs to lie in; improved shelter/facilities, etc...MGCC specifically stated that they intended to spend $200k on improvements like bitumen paths, a small external playground to keep very small kids out of the park...(which is actually an excellent idea, I get very fidgety when small kids are around bigger dogs, just 'cos they might get skittled-Ed)...absolutely, et moi mate, et moi...the letter also stated that there would be a second dog park built on the large area in Conroe Heights...MGCC now denies ever committing any amount to anything, and it all falls under a general 'plan'...

This post has already blown-out a bit so we'll pull stumps here...just wanted to explain why I seem so invested in this dog park stuff...1) 'cos I got me a wunderhund and I loves him proper like, and I know how important all this stuff is to many people, and 2) MGCC's conduct of all of these dog related issues, each and every time it's been deceit and conflict...(and if there's any action it's inaction-Ed)...and it is definitive of how they conduct themselves on literally any issue...here's the map as promised, and we'll get into it next post...to keep y'all tickin'-over 'til then, please consider if you will how many ways the word 'Never' can be achieved using the letters in the words 'Proposed', 'Interim', 'Possible' and 'Future'...

Tomorrow: Doggedly Plodding On With Parking Mad Intent

Just read on the Mt Gambier Residents and Ratepayers Association Facebook page, MGCC has released a series of videos of our illustrious Mayor and Councillors doing truly heart-warming and not-at-all desperate hostage ransom-style 'to-camera' pieces about Mt Gambier and what it is they love so very, very much...(wow, just, wow-Ed)...yes, wow, and like how...and the immediate most obvious thing is that not one of them is about the good ol' $80m FARC (Farcical Aquatic Recreation Centre)...here's one walking down some steps, talking, blah blah something...here's one walking...another one walking, ummm, walking, do we have any where they aren't walking?...(errr this one, sittin' on a log-Ed)...how very lumberjack...(I know, right-Ed)...any at/in/about Wulanda /FARC?...(one wandering about in a toxic swamp-Ed)...nooo, it's semi-aquatic, I'll give ya' that, but no Wulanda?...(ermmmm, nup, sorry-Ed)...not half as sorry as Ratepayers are gunna' be, am I right? yeah?...(ummm, I don't think the monstrous fiscal disaster that is Wulanda is anything to joke about, especially for Mt Gambier Ratepayers who are gunna' be left holdin' that can, that can what they are also standing in, and for many decades to come-Ed)...well that's a cheery note to end on...

I am Nick Fletcher and this is my blog...cheers and laters...

Doggedly Debunking De Dog Park Debarkle Debate Disinformation

Wow...howdy again dear availees...it's now Wednesday 20th December 2023, but it was roughly 1130hrs Tuesday 12th when I last had a go at this post, and a coupla' weeks since I actually started it, etc etc...and it's more than 3 months since the last TMGI post...by way of explanation but sans apology, I went to do that specific post, the one explaining some of the details in the 4 previous TMGI posts about my ICAC Inquiry Testimony, yeah?...and it was like running into a wall...didn't get 2 paragraphs into it and was thinking 'what can I do/say/write that will further explain and/or ultimately resolve that which is already so clearly obvious?'...and soon followed by the cascading realities as they apply to various other specific issues...and that, physically and mentally, it's quite actually like going over the falls...six months I 'took off' away from this 'ere blog, come back for a coupla' posts, and in a matter of moments it's all gone to heck-in-a-handbasket...and 3 months later, here we are...again...

So I've done what I can to make this post at least vaguely coherent, and should any new availee who isn't immediately understanding what exactly are The Issues I refer to, please indulge me with your time by going back and reading any 6-8 random TMGI posts...beyond that, I literally don't know what to say, still don't know what to say about the 20 years of harsh realities presented across a decade of TMGI...unresolved realities...realities that everyone knows...what exactly am I supposed to do with 20 years of unresolved realities that virtually everyone knows but are too corrupt/selfish/weak to even engage with let-alone act to resolve?...and so, apparently, I do this...

Howdy dear availees and welcome to TMGI...2023 has been a big year for the Hastings Cunningham Reserve Dog Parks...(Woof Woof Woof-An Actual Dog)...I concur sir, there's a good boy...there's a big dog park area and an adjacent small dog area, and back in February there was great concern amongst both parks' users 'cos Mt Gambier City Council had scheduled a 'Closed to Public' meeting titled Update Hastings Cunningham Reserve Area and Public Housing...not gunna' re-hash all a' that, there's plenty about it already on this 'ere blog...(and 5-6 more posts stuck in Drafts-Ed)...where they're likely to remain at this rate...it is not unreasonable, unrealistic or irresponsible to suggest that MGCC's very poor conduct re this 'HCR/Dog Park/Secret Meeting' stuff is one of several main issues that has precipitated the re-formation of the Mt Gambier Residents and Ratepayers Association...(and a good thing too, hurrah!-Ed)...as y'all are aware, I had a bittuva' go at the HCR/Public Housing thing on Facebook and this 'ere blog, and was roundly abused for my efforts, not least-of-all in/by The Border Watch...cheers for that...

So, despite allll of that, here we are again...again...I'm just gunna' churn-out a coupla' posts about this HCR/Dog Park/Wulanda stuff...(what the shreck's Wulanda got to do with it?-Ed)...a Council desperately trying to finance the massive overspend and accrued massive debt? debt far beyond Council's ability to adequately finance let-alone actually repay?...(fair enough, but I don't understand how they're still operating if they're allegedly so far in debt-Ed)...no-one does, no-one understands...(so the same as the secretive bizarre management/lease for Wulanda?-Ed)...exactly, because it seems like the answer to this and so many other bewildering actions and subsequent baffling questions, is simply that it's because they're a Council...

As I understand it, in it's most basic form, it is essentially because they're a Council and not a business...and not least-of-all, 1) this gifts Councils extra means of borrowing, eg, the relevant State/Local Government borrowing authority, and 2) Councils are allowed massively unrealistic debt ceilings...(ceilings so high they're more like clear blue sky?-Ed)...go on, say it...(like the ceiling over Mt Gambier's 50m pool?-Ed)...and if you dare do a joke about...(I call it Blue Sky Thinking-Ed)...ooo...(yeah, Blue Sky Thinking - The Ceiling Ain't The Limit-Ed)...oh boy...(no no, Blue Sky Thinking - What's Debt Got To Do With It?-Ed)...good gourd, this could take a while..(no, wait, Blue Sky Thinking For A Rainy Day-Ed)...Blue Sky Thinking For Dummies?...(that's the spirit-Ed)...Blue Sky 'WTF Were They' Thinking...(ding ding ding, ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner-Ed)...okay okay, enough buffoonery, just get on with it...(after you sir-Ed)...this is gunna' take a coupla' posts, so's firstly here's a quick synopsis of a li'l story we like to call, 'The Sagger of Dog Park'...(ummm, don't you mean 'Saga'?-Ed)...sorry what?...(the 'Saga', don't you mean 'The Saga'?-Ed)...oh right, yes, of course, silly me, 'The Saga of The Sagger Of Dog Park'...(no no, I meant the 'Sagger' bit should...it's 'Saga' not...never mind-Ed)...

Are we sitting comfortably?...right, MGCC installed perma-pine post/canvas shade-sails in both dog parks (big/small), apparently some time after the original parks were opened ie initially there were no shelters at all...the small park sail was small enough and taut enough to shed water, but the big park sail was not installed correctly and would fill with rain and slump-down...this made everybody very sad...someone, not me, definitely not me, but someone had already cut a drain hole in the centre of the canvas when I started using dog park 4 years ago...(it's been patched with tape several times but nothing's stuck and/or someone's peeled it back and/or cut a second hole to release the gathering water-Ed)...indeed, and open to the South, this meagre sail provided no shelter if there was any wind at all...and this also made everybody very sad...in mid-April 2023 Council removed the big park sail, patched it 'professionally', then replaced it in late May...can anybody have a wild guess what happened?...(OOO OOO Me Me-Ed)...yes, well, you already know, so, that's not a guess is it?...(Orghhhhh-Ed)...look, tell ya' what, how's about you be wild about what it is that you already know, and the others can have a guess, yeah?...(oh, I s'pose so-Ed)...good fella'...(we guess that it immediately rained, the 'repaired' sail filled with water, and that the weight of water tore the sail loose or ripped it apart-Others)...oh you've done this before...(a coupla' times, yeah-Others)...super and anyhoos, please to be enjoyin' the mythical panoramic majesty that is:

                                                The Hanging Lake of Dog Park...(knew it!-Others)                     

Followed by a collaboration between anonymous guerilla artist The Bleedin' Obvious and DJ Inevitable Outcomes, an installation piece titled:

                                                  'Shelter Reclining, Orange Bunting'

 

(Ah, so close, we got the 'fills with rain' bit, but we didn't pick 'post snaps'-Others)...no no, you've done very well, please accept these chocolates...(cheers-Others)...for scale...(ooo, Cherry Liqueur, very nice-Others)...I said, for scale, in the first photo that sail would normally be at least a foot over my head, but filled with several hundred litres of rainwater that's sagged to just below shoulder height...note the post to the right already leaning in, it was previously vertical, and that one at the left rear, hard to see, but that's actually bowed-in 3-4 inches and has a vertical split developing...I know just enough about physics to know there's equations that calculate just exactly how much 'potential energy' is stored in that structure...it'll be something about the volume of water equates to kilos/mass; then it's about the tension/strength of various stress points, eg, stitches/metal couplings; the strength of all the materials; the directions the strain/weight/force is being applied, eg, through into the poles, etc etc...

Bottomline, there's literally a metric shreck-tonne of energy stored in that, and it's gunna' give somewhere...I took one look at it and knew that it was gunna' blow apart in some way, but hoped the sail would just rip...I was most concerned that a post would snap, potentially spraying timber shards/splinters through the park/s...turns out it would be enough weight/force/energy to snap that pole clean-off at the ground...that was a perfectly fine 8-10inch diameter post, not rotted or anything, a solid post snapped clean-off...(and isn't bunting a wonderful word-Ed)...apropos of what exactly?...(I just think it's a great word and we should use it more often in conversation-Ed)...how for example?...(well, for example, someone asks, "What's Council done to fix that hazard/fault?", and you could reply, "I dunno', some bunting thing"-Ed).........mmm, you been working on that one for a while have you?...(no, not particularly-Ed)...but we digress...

Yes, shazzam, 'twer I what done call Council on Sunday 28th May 2023 about this (top photo) and they sent round a contractor to whack-up some star-droppers and lovely orange bunting...as stated, MGCC removed that sail in April, re-placed it 'repaired' on Thursday 25th or Friday 26th May, it rained a bit that Saturday, and kalamazoo, what had always happened and was always gunna' happen again, happened...again...(ahhh indeed young Master Nick, for 'tis truly the wonder of our times that so many, many wise heads looked at that shambolic clusterfuck and said, yes, let's do that-Ed)...oo you are naughty, but I don't think it's fair to have a crack at the tradies though, they're generally just doin' what they're told...(fair call, but when 'they', being specifically Mt Gambier City Council staff and/or contractors trash the joint and leave it looking like an abandoned building site, then they should quite rightly be castigated for it-Ed)...indeed, their latest effort is appalling, both parks have been left an atrocious and potentially dangerous mess...but we're getting ahead of ourselves...  

And since The Big Recline in May, up until last Monday 4th/Tuesday 5th December, it's looked like this:

Yes folks, this is how much shelter big park users had for the Winter of '23...(isn't that The Night They Drove Ol Dixie Down? no? sorry, I was wondering why yous lot were always huddled under a tree or something instead of using the shelter, huh, there wasn't one-Ed)...so knowing full-well that park users were standing there in the pissing rain, Council has taken over 6 months to replace this, and then have eventually actually replaced both shelters...and that has been handled with Councils' usual grace and efficiency, eg, trashing dog park, as we will cover in the next coupla' posts...(do I want to know what Council has replaced it with-Ed)...the exact same shade sail...(the exact same sail that filled with water and snapped the post off?-Ed)...yep, actually the same piece of canvas, including the original holes/patches...(so let me see if if I've got this right, Council has supposedly done it's 'Public Consultation', and has been told very specifically of the history, and very specifically asked to not repeat that error, and by various people, upto and including you-Ed)...upto and including by me, yes...(and including all the stuff that MGCC has been notified of in writing, and again, by various peeps upto and including you-Ed)...and again, correct...(and then Council has taken all of that and done exactly what it was asked not to do, albeit with metal poles this time?-Ed)...and trashed the joint in the process...

And right there, just within that one specific 'shelter issue', within the broader dog park issue, within the even broader Dog and Cat Management fiasco currently playing-out...it's literally a storm-in-a-teacup, but even then it is fundamentally definitive of how Mt Gambier City Council function...(dysfunction more like it, aha aha-Ed)...just for context, see this photo below, that's a section of path that many park users never knew existed 'cos the sandpit to the right had moved slowly down-slope to cover this whole section, and far across to the left there...I figured this out simply having walked the path around the park and noted the obstacles in the centre of said path, and similar obstacles/seating sticking outta' the sand, etc...and I looked at it and thought 'we need sand along the fence and there's all this sand covering the paths'...so aways back in March another gentleman and I brought our wheelbarrows and shovels, and he started aways up by that vaulting horse thingy and worked this-a-way, and I started just past where that plank was disappearing into the sand, and worked around to just out of shot on the right...I did the LargeAngryHippys' share but between us both it took maybe 90mins and we cleared the entire section...(and put the sand along the fence line to cover the dangerous hard gravel/limestone composite Council placed along there 3 years ago-Ed)...as I mentioned, and on which dogs were hurting their feet, yes...(which Council also knew about-Ed)...yes they did..(and not least of all 'cos you wrote to them back in January-Ed)...yes, yes I did...

 

We've Got Skin In The Game:...'cos in January, the flea-bitten fur-lined fartbag I love to call my pooch...(orrr Woooof!?-AAD)...he was plowing up and down the parks' shared fenceline like they all love to do...and I didn't ever let him do it for long because the rough stones sticking out of the hard ground hurt his feet, and other dogs had had the same issue...on this occasion he ripped the skin right-off the main pad of his front paw...I thought he was limping with bark stuck between his toes, but it was the whole flap of skin hanging-down, as you might lose a callous off a finger...the vets said it was safest and easiest to just remove the skin, and they treated him, wrapped it up, and he was pretty-much fine within a coupla' weeks...I wrote to Council to alert them to the incident and ongoing hazard and asked that they put sand along the fence-line...I received a short email, 'It's gone to the relevant manager' but it did not say who that was...2 months later I'd heard nought, so's I gathered-up me trusty, rusty ol' barra' and went and did it meself...well recently, the second time I cleared the path again, etc, that was just me...

 

This photo below is just last week, where I've tried to tidy-up the rock-strewn mess and damaged path, etc, after MGCCs' latest mind-numbing efforts...gunna' cover this in next coupla' posts...oh, and I did that bit a' path in small park too, that was a coupla' months back...     

Note: Some photos have been supplied to the Mt Gambier Residents and Ratepayers Association along with my permission to reproduce/publish should they wish to do so...and now, in closing, some random words I've made-up...

Discgusstion: A discussion about a topic of and/or that invokes disgust and/or is of itself disgusting.

Discgusstation: A media outlet that deals solely in 'discgusstion' for ratings (usually very Right Wing).

Well coo-shreckin'-eee, that's more than enough for one post, so's, until...(can we do my Wall joke now?-Ed)...your what?...(my Wall joke that you wouldn't let me do when you were havin' a sook there at the start-Ed)...ah cheers, way to be supportive...(ah come on, you know what I mean, pleeeeease-Ed)     ...urgh okay, if we must...(......-Ed)......(you have to start, remember?-Ed)...right, ummm Language Warning, ummm boo hoo, it's like running into a fucking wall...(you mean one with lotsa' glory holes?-Ed).........are we done now?...(well I was hoping for a little more enthusiasm, but sure, that's the joke-Ed)...great, End Language Warning, now let's get this puppy to bed, so's papa can have his supper...

 Tomorrow: More Dog Park Minutiae 

Yes dear availees, we're gunna' gorge ourselves stupid on the litany of deceits, failures and outright lies that define MGCCs' appalling handling of issues with the HCR Dog Parks...and we're gunna' do that for the obvious reasons, ie, as mentioned before, whilst dog park stuff is relatively minor and mundane in the pantheon of Council responsibilities, it's the way that literally every issue has been so grossly mis-handled and ballooned into problems and then into conflicts, and the levels of deception/deceit/dishonesty that MGCC is prepared, nay seemingly compelled to commit when conducting their business...('Our' business sir-Ed)...I stand corrected, thankyou Ed, 'Our' business...

And I Say Ours:...for whilst this 'ere blog and it's contents are solely my opinion/domain/responsibility...(slash ravings of a three-lipped nit-Ed)...when we discuss MGCC and what it does and/or does not do, the diddly-dollaroos they're dollin'-out, that's Ours...(and that building there, that's Ours-Ed)...indeed it is...(and that there, that was Ours, until Council sold it-Ed)...yeah okay, thankyou, fair enough, the point being is that, whatevs the configuration of elected and/or employed peeps, they work for us, they are in 'Our' employ...(and that there sir, that bizarre monstrosity, that's ours-Ed)...ooo is it though? I'd reckon that a range of debtors own that right now...(and for decades to come?-Ed)...well, given there is no apparent business model being applied...unless of course you count the bizarre 'agreement' which has somehow/allegedly been applied, but that has been locked-away behind various 'Commercial Confidentiality' clauses so no-one's got no shreckin' idea what the shreck that even is!...(please, allow me to help you with that-Ed)...why thankyou...(AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!-Ed)...ah good, I feel so much better...

I am Nick Fletcher and this is my blog...cheers and laters...

And We're Back - My ICAC Inquiry Testimony Part IV

Howdy dear availees...had a coupla' goes at re-booting this 'ere blog and quite frankly, it's been a bit of a minor disaster...then I realised I haven't even finished posting my testimony as presented to the South Australian Parliamentary 'Inquiry into the Harms and Adverse Outcomes of ICAC Investigations'...this is specifically symptomatic of how burnt-out and even disassociated I'd become with the whole bloggin' thing...easy fixed though with this 4th and final lengthy installment which continues on from previous 3 posts...(indeed, and we rejoin our hero in the Blossom Garden of the Winter Palace as he explains how Magistrate Teresa Anderson recused herself from the 'trial' officially citing "Abuse of Process"-Ed)...well, lovely reference to Monty Pythons' 'Gumbies' sketch, but I don't know about "our hero", but yeah, dear availees, please enjoy...***   

3467 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Why would she excuse herself? She's identified there is
an abuse of process. Why would she excuse herself?
Mr FLETCHER: Because she felt that I had proved that to her.
3468 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: You might have proved it, but why would she discontinue
her presence?
Mr FLETCHER: The only explanation at the time was as the resident magistrate,
because the stuff I had provided her involved so many local government authorities and police and—
3469 The CHAIRPERSON: There could have been other reasons for her recusing herself.
Mr FLETCHER: If I may, that's the quote:
In light of the material that has been filed in relation to the abuse of process/stay of proceedings
application, Her Honour rules that it is not appropriate for the resident magistrate in Mount Gambier to hear this matter.
Her Honour recuses herself and disqualifies herself from hearing the trial. Set for trial before a new magistrate. Listed
November 10.
That was moved to Magistrate White.
3470 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: In Mount Gambier?
Mr FLETCHER: Yes. I would like to table that if I may, because that's—
3471 The CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
3472 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I will move that it be received and published.
Carried.

Friday, 22 October 2021 Legislative Council Page 485
DAMAGE, HARM OR ADVERSE OUTCOMES RESULTING FROM ICAC INVESTIGATIONS

 
Mr FLETCHER: The Courts Administration Authority, 3 November 2016, where
Magistrate Anderson identifies the abuse of process. It's not just me going into court and saying this
stuff. Her Honour, at that stage, felt I had proven what I was saying about being persecuted rather
than prosecuted to the degree that she was prepared to use that sort of language. That's the outcome
of it.
3473 The CHAIRPERSON: That's your interpretation. There might be others.
Mr FLETCHER: No, I'm saying that's what happened. Anyway, sorry—
3474 The CHAIRPERSON: It's alright. Can we get on to the—
Mr FLETCHER: Which—
3475 The CHAIRPERSON: Where were you going?
Mr FLETCHER: The conviction. As I was saying, the bottom line of it all is I am a
private citizen. I'm not a public servant or any of those sorts of things. I've been right through the
ICAC site, all their various responsibilities, etc.
3476 The CHAIRPERSON: Under the act private citizens can also be—
Mr FLETCHER: That's not what it says.
3477 The CHAIRPERSON: They can be.
Mr FLETCHER: But that's not what it says. That's what I'm saying, as a private
citizen. I've been through it. nowhere does it—all it talks about is maladministration and corruption,
etc., public officials, politicians, etc. At no point is that made clear that a private citizen is also subject
to ICAC legislation. As a layperson—that's that term—nobody I've spoken to understands that.
That's what I'm saying, why the specific request I make of the committee today is
that it needs to be publicly expressed, as politely as you choose to do it—I don't care if you don't use
my name or my example, whatever—to go into the public realm, via the media, etc., and say,
'Everybody needs to be concerned because you are all subject to this legislation and, given that the
precedent has been set at $30,000 per count, that's what you've got hanging over your heads.'
For my part, that's the threat of it; that's the deliberate threat implied in the ICAC
legislation. If you speak out, you're going to lose your house, you're going to lose your business,
because you are going to get a fine beyond all reality.
3478 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: You're saying that private citizens are not subject to the
ICAC law in regard to disclosure.
Mr FLETCHER: Yes, it's not explained in the ICAC legislation.
3479 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: That's different, if it's not explained. But do you concede
that the law does cover private citizens?
Mr FLETCHER: It doesn't, because in the ICAC site it specifically takes it away from
that. If it were just a law, that covers us all. We are all covered by speeding laws, drink-driving, etc.
3480 The CHAIRPERSON: That section of the act would also cover private citizens from
disclosing that there is an ICAC investigation or whatever. It doesn't exclude private citizens.
Mr FLETCHER: That may be the intent. Sorry, I haven't explained myself terribly
well. You start reading it; all it talks about is how it relates to public servants, maladministration, etc.,
etc. Nobody in the community has any idea that even exists.
3481 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: But if somebody is charged or under investigation, it's
quite clear that they can't tell their contractor, electrician, or whatever, that there is an investigation.
Mr FLETCHER: Too late if you have already done it, though. Again, I come back to
the wording of the legislation. It's too late.
3482 The CHAIRPERSON: No, you need to be aware of what's in the legislation.
Mr FLETCHER: Ignorance is no excuse before the law. I have had that put to my
face in court.

Page 486 Legislative Council Friday, 22 October 2021
DAMAGE, HARM OR ADVERSE OUTCOMES RESULTING FROM ICAC INVESTIGATIONS

 
3483 The CHAIRPERSON: There's also those about those representing themselves as
well, Mr Fletcher. You may have heard that one.
Mr FLETCHER: I have, and I can tell you that if I had half the money made available
to me as is being spent on prosecuting me to be able to defend myself, I would have engaged proper
lawyers. When I did, they did it free, they did it pro bono, and they did marvellous, incredible work.
They are an absolute credit to the community legal service establishment because, as I say, I would
be completely lost without the support I got.
3484 The CHAIRPERSON: So you are actually one of the first, if not the first, to be caught
under that legislation, and you are certainly paying a heavy price for that. What we wanted to get to
was the fact that you are considering an appeal.
Mr FLETCHER: I am still trying.
3485 The CHAIRPERSON: Have you sought legal advice or are you trying to get legal
advice about appealing that matter?
Mr FLETCHER: Again, I have been back to community legal service, and it's outside
of their realm. They just tell me straight out, 'Sorry, this is way beyond what we can do. We don't
have the finances, we don't have the expertise.' It is my understanding that I should have been
afforded all of my transcripts the moment that I lodged my initial interest in appealing, the week that
I was convicted. So why it is 3½ years later that I am still fighting to try to get them is a mystery.
3486 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Regarding the community aid, which helped you at the
beginning of your legal fight, is it in their charter to fund or help support people who are subject to
criminal charges, or was that out of their realm, that that is a reason?
Mr FLETCHER: It was the combined problem they had with this being the precedent
case: there was no case law to refer to, plus there's one and, I think, a quarter lawyers for the whole
of the South-East operating out of community legal service. They do handle smaller criminal matters,
domestic violence cases and things like that. They have been quite open. They helped me up to a
point.
3487 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: That would be on behalf of the victim, not a perpetrator.
Mr FLETCHER: I am sorry, I don't know that one. They don't do appeals, I know
that. Because they don't have the funding or the facilities, the man or person hours to do it, they don't
help with appeals and stuff. They straight out just can't deal with that sort of caseload, that workload.
As I say, they did what they could to help me, things like when the police tried to change the charges
the first day of my actual trial. I went straight to them, and the paperwork they provided me says this
is something to be deeply concerned about, not least of all because you have been asked to plead
to this stuff and then they want to change it. The terms they used were 'stay of proceedings'. They
downloaded me whatever piece of legislation it was. Again, that's just part of the smaller process.
To come back to my main concern, it is the extraordinary effort. I can understand an
effort to properly prosecute the precedent case because it is incredibly important and it does affect
every single person. I say it again: most people have no idea that ICAC involves them. They just
wouldn't even know because they are not a public servant or they don't have a government contract
or whatever else; that's stuff that is happening over there. That's how I felt when I first got involved.
I have tried, done everything I could, to establish what the heck that legislation was about, including
lawyers writing on my behalf, etc., and still—
3488 The CHAIRPERSON: In the beginning, yes, it was, and it was fairly new, I imagine
at the time. But the act is certainly there, and those provisions are there, and I guess, Mr Fletcher,
the opportunity for you perhaps is to see if you can engage some—I don't know how you will do it—
Mr FLETCHER: That's alright. Nobody knows how I can do it, so it's—
3489 The CHAIRPERSON: —strong legal advice that perhaps can lead you in that
direction. I don't know what much more this committee can do, but we have heard you out.
Mr FLETCHER: I would just like to table some more of these documents that I have
referred to specifically, if I may.
3490 The CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

Friday, 22 October 2021 Legislative Council Page 487
DAMAGE, HARM OR ADVERSE OUTCOMES RESULTING FROM ICAC INVESTIGATIONS
Mr FLETCHER: It's just the first page of the police officer who raided my house, her
affidavit to the court, where it identifies this investigation is referred to as Operation Baritone,
Anti-Corruption Branch case management. That's a police document.
3491 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move that that be received and published.
Carried.
Mr FLETCHER: There's the copy—I don't think I've handed it up already—of council
of 20 May 2014, where they published on their website a motion without notice about having been
investigated and cleared.
3492 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move that that be received and published.
Carried.
Mr FLETCHER: I also have here the three pages from the 2017-18 ICAC report,
which specifically has a section setting out the prosecutions and outcomes for all cases held across
that period, and I'm not in there, even though I fall directly in that time frame. Again, I refer to the fact
that my case appears nowhere, so how is anybody to know, even if they do what I have done and
read entire ICAC website, that my case has even happened?
3493 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move that that be received and published.
Carried.
3494 The CHAIRPERSON: Do you have you any other documents that you wish to table?
Mr FLETCHER: Just two: a copy of the cover page of the minutes of the special
meeting of Mount Gambier city council, January 2017, where the subject matter is 'Allegations
regarding Andrew Lee to be referred to ICAC', which I referred to before—
3495 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move that that be received and published.
Carried.
Mr FLETCHER: —and the contrast between what is happening in front of me while
I am standing in court: over here this is happening and over here I am being charged for it. The final
one is an unsigned letter from the Crown Solicitor, from May 2018, threatening me in all sorts of
ways, etc., about my blog and having been convicted and so on.
3496 The CHAIRPERSON: Is that a subsequent blog that you published?
Mr FLETCHER: Well, I'm still blogging. I continue to blog.
3497 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: You're still blogging, yes.
Mr FLETCHER: I've never stopped blogging, and this is I have 'supposedly,
possibly, perhaps—
3498 The CHAIRPERSON: Continued to breach the act.
Mr FLETCHER: —contempt of court, but possibly and maybe this will happen'. I just
table that as a broad template of the many, many sorts of threats I have received, particularly when
it comes to the issue of child protection in Mount Gambier. I won't name the school. You gentlemen
know which school it is because you and I have discussed it several times in your previous
employment, and we have discussed it. The Crown Solicitor has threatened me many times about
how I'm facing criminal defamation for the things I say, etc. This is going back 15-plus years. That's
just the latest iteration of the sort of stuff that I have been subjected to and it relates directly to that
ICAC—
3499 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move that that be received and published.
Carried.
3500 The CHAIRPERSON: We're running out of time. Can I suggest that you have a look
at the new legislation that's been passed, and you will see that parliament has also in that created
an office of an independent inspector who can now—

Page 488 Legislative Council Friday, 22 October 2021
DAMAGE, HARM OR ADVERSE OUTCOMES RESULTING FROM ICAC INVESTIGATIONS
Mr FLETCHER: I did see that. I haven't had a chance to see what that actually—
3501 The CHAIRPERSON: Well, can I suggest that you do because that may well be an
avenue for you to be able—
Mr FLETCHER: There's a little light coming on in my head. With all the stuff I've
been saying, the office of the inspector could be the sort of person who might be able to address
these issues for me personally.
3502 The CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you can go to the inspector and present your case. I'm
not saying whether the inspector will decide to take it up, but there is that opportunity that exists now
for people to be able to take a complaint in relation to matters that have been dealt with. Those
matters can be retrospective and going back to the time that you were first investigated and the
subsequent prosecution. You may have an opportunity in that regard. Can I ask that you consider
that as soon as the inspectorate is established. It hasn't been as yet; it will be. Furthermore, perhaps
you do need to engage or find some way of engaging advice from a prominent barrister.
Mr FLETCHER: If I can be really flippant and say I am that desperate I have
considered going to Davis Xenophon.
3503 The CHAIRPERSON: Nick?
Mr FLETCHER: Well, Mr Davis has helped me with advice, the issue I referred to
before when Corrections tried to gaol me. He very kindly gave me an hour-long phone conference
pro bono to help me with that and it nipped in the bud. Again—
3504 The CHAIRPERSON: Well, you may need that.
Mr FLETCHER: —I was lucky to get that sort of support. I have tried with various
people like Nick. It's a bit of a poisoned chalice really at this stage. Perhaps, as you say, the
inspectorate is somebody who can, given those powers, act in that way.
I'm upset because this has happened to me, but the concern, the harm, the adverse
outcome, is the fact that it has happened at all and it could still happen to anybody, as it stands, with
that piece of legislation in place, etc. I come back to my original plea, which is that somehow you talk
to somebody at The Advertiser and just have a really polite article about the committee has become
aware that these issues could involve everybody, so people need to be aware of the ICAC
legislation—something like that to get it out there into the public realm.
3505 The CHAIRPERSON: It's a warning, and you are issuing a warning.
Mr FLETCHER: A light—
3506 The CHAIRPERSON: I'm sure people would not want to go through the experience
that you did, Mr Fletcher. As I said, there is that opportunity coming up with the independent
inspector. Perhaps you would like to go to legal aid again or perhaps even an organisation known as
JusticeNet. I don't know if you have tried them. You have?
Mr FLETCHER: I have. That's where I ran into trouble back in 2015 with someone
claiming to represent me via JusticeNet. I never spoke to them. They showed up at court, claiming
to be acting on my behalf, and I had never even spoken to him. That just fell apart and it wound up
back in Mount Gambier.
The final thing I want to say is the trauma aspect of things. What I have tried to do
is: this is what has happened. This is what can happen. I believe that it's politically motivated. It's not
an accident that this has happened. It's been deliberately manipulated. Whoever has done it, I don't
know. I couldn't tell you. I wouldn't begin to guess, but there's a degree of political involvement with
the ICAC that has seen me be treated the way that I have, and it has been deliberate.
So I'm arguing partly against myself, in saying that this could happen to anybody,
but it has also happened to me because I am special and I have been meted out special treatment.
Those two realities can exist side by side because this has happened to me, because it has been
done to me specifically and—
3507 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: That begs the question: have you seen other people
publish online, on their Facebook statuses and so on—

Friday, 22 October 2021 Legislative Council Page 489
DAMAGE, HARM OR ADVERSE OUTCOMES RESULTING FROM ICAC INVESTIGATIONS

 
Mr FLETCHER: Have you ever been online?
3508 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: —that somebody has been referred to ICAC and wondered
what happens to them?
Mr FLETCHER: I have seen stuff. Apparently, there are secret hearings for ICAC
and you don't know what's in there. All that you see is there has been a hearing about stuff. The
terrible case of the police officer that you dealt with recently, who was charged and he didn't even
know what he had been charged with—sorry, he was under investigation, not even charged, and
didn't even know what he had been under investigation for. So I am aware in a broader sense that
things are happening.
The Troy Bell case is obviously the big one at the moment, the obvious one, but
what's really happening? Even as it's in court now, there seems to be all sorts of confusion about
what's actually happening.
3509 The CHAIRPERSON: That's on appeal to the High Court. The matter will be dealt
with after the High Court brings down its decision.
3510 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I was more meaning that somebody goes to a council
meeting, in the council it says that somebody might be referred to ICAC and you then, as somebody
who blogs—
Mr FLETCHER: Yes.
3511 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: —write about that, and you're the one who—
Mr FLETCHER: I have blogged about other people and other ICAC things after they
have been in the public realm—for example, former Robe council mayor and some other people
involved with Robe council. A couple of them actually referred themselves to ICAC because it shut
down discussion of it publicly. As I say, another misuse of the ICAC legislation was that somebody
accused of maladministration referred themselves because then it couldn't be discussed. That's the
only issue.
3512 The CHAIRPERSON: We are running over time.
Mr FLETCHER: If I could just make my final—
3513 The CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
Mr FLETCHER: Talking about the harm to me personally, I've been through it, but
it's been worse for my family. It's caused ructions in my family where parts of my family look at me
as a heinous criminal. I now have a criminal conviction for telling the truth. Every step of the way I've
told the truth, regardless of what is or isn't in there. I am the only person involved in all of these things
that's ever faced any charges for any of it.
The damage it's caused in my family—my poor mum thinks I'm going to gaol every
other day of the week, and not least of all because Corrections is threatening to gaol me. That
happened last year. That's the personal level of harm that I've been through. That's what's happened
and it continues because this just doesn't go away for me. It's never going to go away for me.
Deal with the inspectorate for however many years while they try to sort out. There's
the harm that's happened to me, there's the potential harm to the average citizen who's got no idea
that this stuff applies to them. That's just all I'd like to say.
3514 The CHAIRPERSON: Yet there are others who would know that and have managed
to escape scrutiny. I won't go into that.
3515 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Just one observation: you got a $540,000 fine.
Mr FLETCHER: Yes.
3516 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: For that you get 265 hours—
Mr FLETCHER: 260 hours.
3517 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: —which works out to $2,000 an hour.

Page 490 Legislative Council Friday, 22 October 2021
DAMAGE, HARM OR ADVERSE OUTCOMES RESULTING FROM ICAC INVESTIGATIONS

 
Mr FLETCHER: I'm a very special person. I tried to say that.
3518 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Maybe you are the highest paid community worker in
the world.
Mr FLETCHER: And I didn't do it, so—
3519 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Yes, I understand that, but if you don't do that community
service you could very well end up in gaol.
Mr FLETCHER: That was what happened last year. I was excused for health
reasons by Corrections back in 2018: doctors' letters and whatever else. For some reason they came
back in February last year and tried to have me gaoled. They wanted an enforcement of 30 days for
not doing it. Even in their affidavit last year it said, 'We excused him in 2018, but now we want him
gaoled because he hasn't done it.' So that is the reality, you face gaol for not doing community
service.
When it comes to the actual section 56, there is no gaol time related to that, only the
fines. That relates to not getting legal aid. The letter literally said, 'No gaol time attached to that
offence, you don't get legal aid.' That was the explanation. So you're right, but you have to not do the
hours to be in that—
3520 The CHAIRPERSON: Okay Mr Fletcher, thank you. Unfortunately, I think you were
an easy target for that legislation.
Mr FLETCHER: I would like to think I've made it as difficult as possible.
3521 The CHAIRPERSON: You became an easy target for them, and certainly because
of your inability to get strong legal representation.
Mr FLETCHER: In that sense, definitely, yes.
3522 The CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for appearing before the committee today. A
transcript of your evidence will be forwarded to you. Make any corrections you see fit, okay?
Thank you for appearing today.
Mr FLETCHER: Again, thank you for accommodating me. I appreciate the chance
to get some of this on the table.
3523 The CHAIRPERSON: Good luck with your challenge or pursuit of an appeal.
Mr FLETCHER: I know you can't do anything to help me, I knew that coming in, but
I would like to think that something can be achieved from me being here. Let me make the point
again: if you can make it known that everybody is affected by this legislation so this doesn't happen
to another person, that will be something. Cheers.
3524 The CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr Fletcher.
THE WITNESS WITHDREW

***and so there you go...it's fairly self-explanatory and again quite lengthy so I'll leave it there and then come back with an overview summary post...

Tomorrow: Reviewing My ICAC Inquiry Testimony

Again thanks to those few who have supported/encouraged me to return to this 'ere blog...pre-emptive apologies if it's a bit clunky and chunky as we get back up to speed, but we're back and that's what's important...

I am Nick Fletcher and this is my blog...cheers and laters...

Latest Mt Gambier City Council Response Re Hastings Cunningham Reserve Housing

Howdy dear availees...just gunna' post a copy of my latest correspondence with Mt Gambier City Council, and their response...(and our response to their response-Ed)...errr, maybe...(and they'll respond to our response to their response-Ed)...well actually, no, apparently not...(why? what have you done now?-Ed)...well 'Council' seem to be arguing that, 'cos I've questioned their actions/"process", they aren't going to answer my questions about those 'inferred deficiencies'...(nonsense, Council can't simply refuse to answer a perfectly valid question-Ed)...well apparently they can and apparently they fully intend to...but first, our legals...

Caution: This post may contain lines of narcotic humour, but not a trace of MGCC propriety.

This 'Response' contains no answers to any of the actual questions I've raised, nor addresses any of the "detail" of my letter...(magnifique! Council has provided what is possibly the second best sentence in the entire history of noise-Ed)...what do you mean "noise"?...(well, since 'noise' was first invented, you know, before words or voices or even sounds there was just 'noise', since then-Ed)....righto, fair enough, I concur that sentence 2 is a breath-taking masterpiece of vacuous alliteration...actually, please to be going below just down here and reading this 'response', but do be prepared for the second sentence...(it's like lying in the backyard man, staring at the night sky, listening to a whole Pink Floyd album, whilst wangin' hard on 'shrooms-Ed)...I'll take your word for that...(yeah, it's like a transcendental freak-out man, and like Council's just taking you along for the ride, they're takin' ya' out there man, over the midnight rainbow, and leavin' ya' there, and nuthin' is real, and everything is talked about......sorry, what was the question?-Ed)...nevermind...and so here's the MGCC response that I received just after 0900hrs this morn, 14th February 2023...***

Dear Mr Fletcher,

Thank you for your email dated 9 February 2023 in relation to the publication of notices relating to information and briefing sessions.

I appreciate the detail with which you have presented your views, however the Council Administration does not share your interpretation and commentary on the practical application of the relevant statutory provisions relating to the publication of these notices.

I will not be responding to the further questions you have posed as they infer some deficiency in Council's process, whereas the notices Council publishes on it's website exceed the legislative publication requirements.

You may of course engage your own further advice in relation to these queries at your own arrangement and cost should you seek to do so.

Your communication has been distributed to the CEO and General Manager City Infrastructure as requested. If you wish to distribute it to Elected Members their contact details (email addresses) are publicly available on the Council website.

 Kind Regards

***...okay, so my letter was actually about various concerns/questions all relating to a single issue, that MGCC 'secret' meeting 7th March 2023, and most specifically why  a 'single line item' notification for that meeting was titled, "Update Hastings Cunningham Reserve and Public Housing"...

Sentence 2:...Tada!...told ya'...what that says is, 'Council disagree with your "interpretation" of the Local Government Act requirements'...(what it says is 'Council reject the premise of your questions'-Ed)...indeed, pretty much...at best it says "We disagree, now here's a specifically legislatively jargon-laden word salad masquerading as a sentence"...(you would say that-Ed)...no not me, them! they're sayin' it!...(oh, right-Ed)...keep up...and furthermore, S2 ain't a whole long way from just sayin' 'you are wrong, we are right'...(well you did make some very specific and detailed statements about the LGAct, and then ask questions about those issues-Ed)...well I like to think I did, sure...

S3: How is it appropriate for a Council to refuse to answer any questions, and specifically, somehow try to justify that by declaring the questions "infer some deficiency"...(how in the living shreck do ya' contact Council about an issue, and not "infer some deficiency"-Ed)...well I guess if you contact them to say nice things...jokes aside, read my letter and then gauge that against this response... 

S4: Better Get A Lawyer Son:...this is not exactly a direct 'Legal Threat', but it's definitely sayin' 'if you want answers then get your own legal advice...(well who all else's advice are ya' gunna get on specific points of Law, other than a lawyers'?-Ed)...exactly, or spend years trying to get a response maybe from a local politician/Minister/Departmental Head/whatevs...(yeah good luck with that-Ed)...

S5: Stuff you Mr Fletcher, contact them yourself...anyone?...Ed?...(nope, you've covered it nicely-Ed)...

Kind Regards:...(bam!!! cop that! comes in with a devastating "I appreciate", then leaves with "Kind Regards"; brutal-Ed)...yeah. it's arguably the second greatest 2-Word Sentence in the history of noise...(yep, the 'words' say nice things sure enough, but there's an expletive-heavy white noise goin' on behind those words-Ed)...beautifully put sir, if we do say so ourselves...

(And just a quick reminder, were it needed, 'Ed' is not an actual person...'Ed' is a confected literary device used to simulate a conversation, try to joke around a bit, debate contrasting points, etc, stuff that engages dear availees, rather than just lecturing at y'all...this has been an 'Ed' talk-Ed) 

In fact, the whole 'response' has got a real 'expletive-laden vibe' to it...(it does doesn't it...I reckon if you take that 'stuff you' that ya' mentioned, yeah, and crank that up to a Force 'F'-you, and apply that in a few places-Ed)...wow, it works...I mean, if you take literally any part of this 'response' and drop in a few choice 'F' nuggets, it all still makes perfect sense...(but just with a much greater sense of Realism-Ed)...

All jokes aside, I can't help feeling that we've forgotten something vital here, something critical...(ummmm-Ed)...there's something.........(errrr-Ed)...not helping...(welll, errr, what about this then?-Ed)...ah! my correspondence to MGCC, what they then done 'respond' to, yes, this is it, well done...

I have been trying to get actual answers to numerous but specific and detailed issues...this letter is self-explanatory, and MGCCs' 'response' is above...***

Please distribute copies of this letter to;

Mayor, Councillors, the CEO, and the General Manager City Infrastructure.

Dear Council,

Re: “Update Hastings Cunningham Reserve Area and Public Housing”

Meeting 7^th March 2023

I refer to my correspondence dated Friday February 3, 2023, and your email response received 4.59pm on Tuesday 7^th February 2023.

For ease of comparison, I have included your email:

The March 7, 2023 briefing is  a briefing in relation to the land nearby to Hastings Cunningham Reserve which are State Government land parcels  which Council is working with Department of Infrastructure and Transport to gain access to (as per the January 30 press release) and adjoin Hastings Cunningham and the rail lands area. 

 The briefing will also cover a separate matter relating to Public housing, to reiterate which is not on Hastings Cunningham reserve, which is community land. For future reference Council from time to time discusses several subject matters in one briefing session. 

 Both items in the March 7, 2023 briefing contain correspondence from the state that is currently confidential (as determined by the state) and therefore the briefing will not be open to the public.

 For information about council’s recreation areas please consult the  Sport, Recreation and Open Space strategy which provides a comprehensive analysis of open spaces in our City and Council’s intentions.

Thank you for your enquiry. End Email

As I understand it, it is a legislative requirement that when Council is planning an Information/Briefing Session, that the meeting and the relevant public notifications deal with each single matter as a 'single line item', ie, each matter requires a separate meeting and notification.

This 'single line item' requirement is particularly important when a meeting is to be held 'In-confidence', ie, the public are denied attending that meeting, because Council must specifically identify each and every legislative justification for that exclusion, and as per each individual matter.

You are stating here that you have not just a) placed two allegedly unrelated matters on only the one notification, and b) set those matters for only one meeting, but also c) that the meeting is actually not about the site identified, that it actually relates to multiple separate unidentified sites somewhere “nearby”.

This appears to be several breaches of the legislated requirements, compounded by the fact that in doing so, Council have also failed to meet your responsibilities to comprehensively address every justification for excluding the public.

Furthermore, you claim that this is not the first time Council has addressed “several subject matters” at a single meeting, and would apparently intend to do so again.

Please identify to me where Council have previously conducted, or intends to conduct, meetings covering multiple matters and with the relevant notification, etc.

When Council says “...confidential (as determined by the state)” are you referring to Councils' legislative responsibilities under the Local Government Act, or saying that the State government has deemed “confidential” just that specific correspondence relating to those sites “nearby”?

Your response raises many more questions.

1. If the notice refers to specific sites “nearby”, why does it not refer specifically to those individual sites by name or lot number, etc? with each meeting about each site then requiring individual notification?

2. Is it appropriate for Council to have a meeting where-in you are discussing muliple different sites without actually identifying any of them? let alone in the requisite manner?

3. Why has Council not followed the legislative requirements to plan and conduct these allegedly separate matters, HC Reserve and Public Housing, as 'single line item' meetings and use single notifications?

In the notification Council has posted, it directly states “the matter to be discussed is”, being the singular, not as Council is now stating 'the matters to be discussed are'.

As Council is aware, there has been widespread community concern ever since Council posted this 'single line item' notification about a meeting that identifies 'Hastings Cunningham Reserve and Housing' as a single matter.

Yours,

***...and likely there'll be yet more correspondence to come...

But here's a teaser; it appears that only 1, that's 'one' of the dozen various clubs and organisations using Hastings Cunningham Reserve has an actual 'Lease' with MGCC, the rest are all on 'Licenses'...and there's a big difference...(and someone should explain that difference to Mr Coombes of the SE Street Machine Club-Ed)...well I'm sure he's researched it thoroughly, like we have, before making public statements of "fact" on the subject...(well obviously he hasn't, researched it that is-Ed)...yeah, I was being facetious, you know? sarcasm?...(well okay, I just never know with you...honestly, you're just about the most Brutally Passive-Aggressive Introverted Narcissist I know-Ed)..."just about"? how many BPAINs do you know?!...

Tomorrow: Something Special And Different, But Actually Probably More HCReserve

(I'm really starting to resent that bloody Reserve-Ed)...well reserve your resentment for those responsible, the Reserve deserves our support...(oh whatevs!-Ed)...and there are of course multiple other recent posts about HCR and MGCCs' related actions, here on TMGI Blog...enjoy...

I am Nick Fletcher and this is my blog...cheers and laters...