fiona.png
spreads (7).gif

We only answer our own questions and ignore yours (if we want)


Dear Beagle Editor,

COUNCIL RESPONDS WITH NO ANSWERS!

On 11th Nov I emailed a letter to the GM seeking answers to a few questions in regard to the Mackay Park development (also published in the Beagle).

Today I received a response which I would like to share.

It seems that Council’s “Frequently Asked Questions about the Mackay Park Precinct” document(published in the Beagle), supposedly answers all questions the community may have.

And if it doesn’t, there will probably be a page that vaguely fits the topic – ‘stuff’ the actual question!

But then, what to do if there is no relevant page to refer to? Easy! Don’t answer it!

I will again be writing to the GM asking:

* Apart from Otium, who provided the other 2 quotes for the development(a mandatory requirement of Council’s Code for Procurement)?

* Again I ask, why were community submissions not sought on the concept plan(as RMS has done for Bay Bridge)?

* Again, I seek your comments regarding whether the Principles of the Community Engagement Framework(CEF) have been met. In particular, I refer to Council’s letter to schools seeking support for grant funding, which did not include the concept plan with a 25m pool - “did the participants get all the information they needed to provide meaningful input?”

If not, why not?

General Manager,

I write seeking an explanation as to why 3 quotes were not sought from consultants in regard to the Mackay Park development – a mandatory requirement of council’s Code of Practice for Procurement.

RESPONSE:

Please refer to the following link regarding Frequently Asked Questions about the Mackay Park Aquatic and Arts Facility - Frequently Asked Questions.On page 3 of this document you will see under the question ‘Who is Otium Planning and what is their experience in these projects?’ That the engagement of Otium was a result of a competitive request for quotation process.

I would also like to know why submissions on the draft concept plan were not sought from the community. Such a large expensive development impacts all ratepayers, as we will be paying for future ongoing costs whether we utilise the facility or not.

RESPONSE:

On page 4 of this document you will see under the question ‘How is Council involving the community in this project?’ that extensive consultation has been undertaken. You should also note as outlined on page 1, that we are in the very early stages of this project and council’s focus at this point, is to secure funding.

This development would rate Level 4 or 5, High Impact in council’s Community Engagement Framework(CEF). I believe many of the principles of the CEF have not been met.

For example:

In regard to the letter to schools seeking support for grant funding, that did not include the concept plan – “Did participants get all the information they needed to provide meaningful input?”(CEF)

RESPONSE:

NONE!

Patricia Gardiner

Deua River Valley

#Opinion

COMMENTS : Due to the risks associated with comments from unidentified contributors that expose The Beagle to possible legal actions under the NSW Defamation Act 2005 No 77 anonymous or Nom de Plume comments will not be available until an alternate system of author verification can be investigated and hopefully installed.

Those who provide their REAL NAME (first name AND Surname) and a verifiable email address (it won't be published) are invited to comment below. (yes it is a pain but please comply - it would be a  shame to see your comment deleted)

Those contributors KNOWN to us and verified may continue to use their First Name for ease. The primary need for all of this is due to traceability should a legal action arise.

If you need anonymity email us via our normal or encrypted email accounts


Please note that if you are looking for a previous comment that is no longer visible please contact us.