Topic: nsw govt
That little #3 at bottom left of the article pictured means third edition, and likely country readers and websites may not get the late, impacting story?
It tells of the repercussions of this similar post by SAM here
How could ex MP Burgmann have supported Joh style Part 3A repeal of green laws in NSW Planning Act?
Topic: nsw govt
Thursday, 13 March 2008The trouble with Meredith Burgmann, career lefty, disaster tourist, feminist
Topic: nsw govt
In that last post we write:
Nor is Burgman flattered by the poor governance of her feminist co author and former staffer Yvette Andrews at the very large community space at Addison Rd Centre:Saturday, 16 February 2008How to get a $65Kpa community sector wage without any open job selection process?
Topic: local news
Who has presided over the destruction of the cyber gateway for over 8 months (work this writer did in good faith, non aligned, equal prominence to all tenancies):
addison road centre "Come back soon. We are just getting it better. This Website is still under construction."
Talk about cynical. This writer was moved to publish this satirical job advert
Nor is Burgmann free herself of the Addison Rd taint of poor governance as mate Andrews is well known to protect Gallery director Cutcliffe, an ALP aligned grifter who has enjoyed 4 years rent free 2003-7 despite $30K paintings on private sale. Cutcliffe's lease has been sanitised with highly discounted lease from 2007 under Andrews management via a new 'non profit entity' created for the purpose with guess who reputed to be on that company directorships? It's unconfirmed but the claim by one tenant is that it is in fact Meredith Burgman who has given presentations at same gallery.
And to that sharp commentary we add this now:
To: [Clover Moore Mayoral PR flak]Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 12:41 PMSubject: Fw: Cr Olive re Addison Rd Board fyi re s.20 Protected Disclosures research, ARC website down 8 months now----- Original Message -----To: [Marrickville Councillors]Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 12:39 PMSubject: Cr Olive re Addison Rd Board fyi re s.20 Protected Disclosures research, ARC website down 8 months nowDear PeterRegarding your position on the Addison Rd Board you may find it interesting that I've been researching the Protected Disclosures Act 1994 (NSW) here in relation to the Gillian Sneddon/Orkopoulos scandal at State level but there is a spinoff regarding ARC too:This is not an exhaustive correspondence, with full cross referencing just to say that by section 20 (no need to read in full, see comments below this extract)
PROTECTED DISCLOSURES ACT 1994 - SECT 20Protection against reprisals
20 Protection against reprisals(1) A person who takes detrimental action against another person that is substantially in reprisal for the other person making a protected disclosure is guilty of an offence.Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units or imprisonment for 12 months, or both.(1A) In any proceedings for an offence against this section, it lies on the defendant to prove that detrimental action shown to be taken against a person was not substantially in reprisal for the person making a protected disclosure.(2) In this Act, "detrimental action" means action causing, comprising or involving any of the following:(a) injury, damage or loss,(b) intimidation or harassment,(c) discrimination, disadvantage or adverse treatment in relation to employment,(d) dismissal from, or prejudice in, employment,(3) Proceedings for an offence against this section may be instituted at any time within 2 years after the offence is alleged to have been committed..................................Notice in particular it's a serious offence (up to 12 months prison) for other Board members, say John Reynolds, Yvette Andrews to take "reprisals" action against the centre website site builder (me) for making a grievance complaint to the "principal officer" of a "public authority" which includes any body that can be investigated by for instance the "auditor general" or "NSW Ombudsman". Is ARC such a body. I will be looking into this.This calls up the fact that Peter Talmacs told me my removal from that website work (which has been down for 8 months now it seems) was "vindictive".My best guess so far is that the ARC is indeed subject to the Protected Disclosures Act and that within 2 years of the said reprisal the perpetrators can by prosecuted for an offence. Assuming the ARC is covered by the Protected Disclosures Act then notice also that the onus of proof of defending a charge of reprisals is on the defendant, that is Reynolds or Andrews.I would be very interested to know if the minutes of the Board re both Andrews and Reynolds participated in my removal from the website work (around Sept 07) as punishment for making a complaint against Reynolds bullying (late July 07 from memory). I have no doubt myself. And it's up to them to prove otherwise.I have correspondence from Laird my complaint [was] in jurisdiction for centre work on centre time (this is denied by the Board but it's a lie) and that's my direct evidence as a solicitor. It wasn't Art Resistance work.You might want to know that Reynolds told me in April or May 2007 that to quote "I did a good job" on the centre website. Laird was over joyed with the website building too. Most every tenant was.I can predict that current Board members will claim the work was not professional or whatever and they wanted a professional website builder. Well that's subjective and contrary to most feedback and it is after all a community centre not a corporate enterprise. But where is the centre website? It's been down 8 months. Talmacs told the truth it was "vindictive" and I'm getting quite interested in taking it further now that I've pretty much exposed Meredith Burgmann's stalking of Clover Moore for ALP dishonesty about voting for Part 3A of the Planning Act, as well as alleged ARC taints. ....Yours trulyTom McLoughlin, editor www.sydneyalternativemedia.com/blog, solicitor