Ywol

[CARDIA]

Woomera,

Sorry for what might have appeared as an ambush on my last post. It was not intended as such. We had the site mentioned in the post forwarded to us and a friend got membership to the site and attempted to make contact. The contact was successful and the responses we received basically confirmed that the site was legitimate and active.

I thought it was necessary to post the information due to the past record of this council in maligning members of the public in the most shocking manner and when we located this site, I thought it was an excellent example of the maliciousness of the individual involved and a good example of the hypocracy of these people.

I appreciate that caution must be used as there are 3 possibilities with the link I provided:

1. It is a clear attempt by others to besmerch the individual to whom the link is credited.
2. It is a clear attempt by the individual to whom the link is credited to use this site to blame others.
3. The link is real and the individual to whom it is credited is the rightful owner.
I believe case 1 is highly unlikely, case 2 is possible and case 3 is probable.
:*

[gyro gearloose]

Woomera,

After seeing the original post on the persons profile on that web site the other day, I can verify that it has been online for some time. The thing is, I can’t see the big deal with the whole thing! There are thousands of people (myself included) that have a page on this particular site. If this person has a private life, then so be it!

The thing that I can’t understand is now that this has come to light, how can this person have the audacity to vilify others for paddling the same canoe.

Just my two bobs worth……


:yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

[Binoculars]

What sort of knob would use his government email address as a contact on a site like that? You're being disingenuous, Cardia. Possibility 1 is the only alternative.

I repeat, stick to the guts of the matter. You seem to have enough information to be able to do some good here; don't blow it by losing your credibility.

I don't know what journalistic contacts you have, but feel free to email or PM me if you want it taken further.

[COLLIE]

At council on Tuesday night just passed, council approved the second lease for the airport (the old vacated hangar). Council approved a 10/10 year lease with a 3 month free rent period. There is also a 5% reduction in rent for extra employees (up to 10%) for 5 years with council stating that they have to make the deal attractive to encourage people to move to the area to generate employment in the area!;)
Are these people for real......they just ditched a long-standing, viable business that employed 2 full-time and 2 casual staff. Go figure?:\
As for leases, I'd say HM with his 5 year lease (without options) would have to be rubbing his hands together about now!!!:*

[ASKARI]

Over the past 8 months, many issues about the Illawarra Regional Airport have been aired on this website. A consistent matter has been the recent Expression of Interest (EOI) process recently used by council to evict the helicopter operator from the airport. Many respondents have been concerned that there appeared to be a lack of corroborating evidence to support any foul play on behalf of council in this matter. Thanks to the FOI processes, corroborating evidence is coming to light and is becoming available.

The following snippet is an extract from the Department of Local Government (DLG) case notes titled LEASE AND EXPRESSION OF INTEREST FOR HELICOPTER HANGAR – SHELLHARBOUR CITY COUNCIL (Document 05/314)

“22 March 2005.
The department visited the GM, in relation to this and other concerns about the processes around the runway upgrade. The GM gave assurances that neither Mr W nor himself would be involved in the selection process and that a probity assessment would be conducted to ensure the expression of interest process would be fair. The GM advised that if AEROWASP was awarded the lease he would just learn to live with the decision.”

Frequent readers would remember the scandalously defamatory report that this individual then raised before council on 17 May 2005, and published on the council website. (This report has subsequently been removed after legal action from AEROWASP.)

After the Council was illegally influenced by this council officer, the Director General of the DLG wrote this letter to council:

“23 June 2005
Doc ID A5501
GM
Shellharbour City Council

Dear Mr Wxxx
I refer to the recent EOI process for the leasing of hangars at Illawarra Regional Airport. In particular, I note your report to council’s meeting of 17MAY05.
As you are aware, the department has been undertaking preliminary enquiries into the process surrounding the leasing of the hangars. The department notes and welcomes council’s earlier efforts to ensure there was fairness and balance in the process through the appointment of a suitable assessment panel to provide recommendations of the EOI’s received.
The department is therefore surprised and concerned, having regard to your recognition of the need for yourself and Mr Wxxxxxx to refrain from direct involvement in the assessment process, that you submitted a report that made clear your disagreement with the outcome of the process. It is open to conclude this report was highly influential in council determining not to support the panel’s recommendation to award a lease to AEROWASP.
The department notes you obligations under the council’s code of conduct to “consider issues consistently, promptly and fairly….and in a non-discriminatory manner”. Given that the matters that you raised in your report do not appear to have been part of the assessment criteria for the leasing process, it is unclear what relevance they had to the decision council made. If council wished to include such matters such as the bidder’s capacity to work effectively with council, it was open to council to do so. As I understand it, council did not include this matter, yet later appeared to rely on it in not deciding to award the lease to AEROWASP.
In the circumstances, I request from you an explanation for your actions in intervening in the process, and how you assess them to be consistent with your obligations under the code of conduct. Please also advise of what if any communication you had with the assessment panel regarding your report (ie; did you put the record to the panel, did the panel comment on your report). Please also advise, what if any comment panel members made on your report before it was submitted to council. I look forward to receiving your response within 21 days of the date of this letter.
Yours sincerely,
Garry Payne
Director General”

Guess what? He never even bothered to reply to the Director General of the Department of Local Government……….now that is arrogance!


:ok:

[Aquaboy]

With a letter like this one being issued from the Director General of the DLG to the General Manager of the Council, it seems now that the helicopter operator may have a good chance of perusing this through the courts for his loss of business and heartache. Who better than the boss as a witness for the plaintiff! :ok:

Askari,

PM me if you have any details on the General Manager’s response to this letter, as I know someone who would dearly love access to any details in it.

Does seem that there finally is some seepage through the cracks of this tight little bunch of Sunday gatherers……. :yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

[PROPSWINGA]

I hope this council kept a hangar spare.........on the strength of that letter, I would guess they might be handing one over very shortly!:*

[ASKARI]

Having spoken to several councillors over the weekend, I can now confirm that this letter has never been tabled at council nor has the recipient bothered to reply to the Director General of the DLG on this matter.:*
As a consequence, this council may be subject to 'review' by DLG staffers in coming weeks, which could be a pre-cursor to 'Administration'.:ok:
Another scathing letter from ICAC to council has surfaced as well concerning the airfield upgrade and the breeches of procedure and questionable dealings in this fiasco too. After further advice, it may well be published here subsequently.
Believe you me; all the chooks are finally coming home to roost with this mob!:ok:

[CARDIA]

Finally, I think you people might have hit paydirt!:ok:

[fullflaps]

Source tells me that the local TV media was interviewing the ex-wollongong helicopter operator at the field this evening. Dare I say that it may have something to do what was posted on this site in the last several days........

If they interview one side of the news, then they will have to get the others sides version. Can't wait to see what the GM has to say on his behalf, or will he send in his paid mouth piece
to stammer his way through.

Who knows, maybe he may be invited back to Wollongong to do the Q baggage handling on the field, as I also hear that the operator that has that is doing his best to (once again) screw everyone over.:yuk:

[vortexstate]

Word has it that the GM gagged all his staff and wouldn't answer many of the questions that the local media had for him. Also wanted to know what information is out there in the public, and that council had done no wrong and that the case is closed!

Think again........ i think it has only started, and that the evictee from the airport may finally get justice.

Mmmmmmm...... what month is that contract resigned?:ok:

[wylie_cyote]

Saw the news broadcast tonight and if the letter reproduced in this thread earlier is accurate, that GM has one BIG set of dusters!:uhoh: He virtually said that the Director General of the Department of Local Government was either a lier or an idiot 'cause his council didn't break any rules or do anything wrong - yeah and he's kidding right?:\ (He didn't think it necessary to mentioned how come he never bothered to reply to the Director as directed in his letter nor why he failed to table the letter before council.)
If I remember rightly, this is the same mob who interferred with the tendering process mid-way when allegedly one senior council officer assisted one of the applicants with his submission - in fact, the same council officer mentioned in the DLG's letter above as being directed by the GM not to be involved in any capacity in the tendering process. This is the same council who employed every sh*t trick to oust the local helo guys with blatant lies, set ups, hidden cameras, false and unfounded claims to CASA and now we discover, malicious and intentional interferrence with the council's own code of conduct, as confirmed by the Director General!
I for one think the DLG should be appointing an Administrator to this council sooner rather than later and having an independent review board investigate the actions of these people about now. These claims are scandalous and his answers to the questions are a clear attempt to mislead the public yet again. .:ok:

[Aquaboy]

Seems the Airport Manager can’t get enough excitement in his life these days. Now that Mr. H isn’t on the airfield to abuse, it appears that he has set his sights on another operator. This operator doesn’t even have his business on the field, but uses it to deliver his clients to the final destination, from 12,000’ above.

According to the AM, delivering your clients by car or minibus to the airfield for the flight requires approval of the council……..

One really thinks this bloke may have been dropped a few too many times as an infant!!!!!!! :yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

[COLLIE]

Aquaboy, you are quite correct!
Appears a long-established para operator has a DA before council to conduct para ops in YWOL.
The Airport Manager has made it known in no uncertain terms that HE does not want these ops from HIS airport and will no doubt pull the same tricks as his master to see his wishes obeyed!:*
Forget about all the huff and puff about fair play, nondiscrimination, due and proper process AND illegal interferrence with the DA processes et al, but it will be interesting to read the report HE puts before council to persuade his labour party flunkies to put the kaibosh on the whole affair!

When will these clowns learn?:\