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 7th March 2023
I refer to my correspondence dated Friday February 3, 2023, and your email response received 4.59pm on Tuesday 7th 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.
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?
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?
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...
No comments:
Post a Comment