"ASSAULT ON TAG" - NAH JUST TEASING CERTAIN CONFUSED FOLKS

What "assault" might I be referring to? Well I suppose there was the teaser of the Pacific Rim dioxin lab results waved in front of their noses which they still haven't requested. Bizarre. Recently I sent TAG a copy of my January 3/2022 Blog post here referring to the fourth DNAPL letter (in a series); this final one written by hydrogeologist Wilf Ruland. I promised them that if they couldn't get copies of the four letters ( April 3, 2006, April 21, 2006, May 2, 2008 and May 15, 2008) written by Wilf and Jaimie Connolly (MOE) then I would send them copies. Now of course all TAG members have had this e-mail from me for two weeks now and once again zero response. Hence I guess I'll just plain send them the four incredible, game changing DNAPL letters. Well game changing as in remediation/cleanup breakthrough in an honest, transparent and forthright process. That we don't have so that may explain why the TAG Chair, Tiffany, and or the TAG members have failed to leap at this opportunity. Again I continue to ask the question: Are TAG members restrained from direct discussion (e-mail/phone etc.) with members of the public? Are they under orders to remain mute and only the Chair Tiffany or corrupt (by my definition) mayor, Sandy Shantz permitted to speak on their behalf? Sure looks that way. ....................................................................................................................................... One more "tease" perhaps. I know transparency is a four letter word to the illiterate and corrupt. TAG however are a committee of Woolwich Council (i.e. beholden to them) and they allegedly are working for and in the public interest. Four and a half years ago a conflict-of-interest scandal was laid at the feet of Woolwich councillors who covered their eyes, ears and noses and proclaimed "I see, hear and smell nothing.". The c. o. i. scandal four and a half years ago was in regards to two members of TAG and here we go again, the TAG Chair and members over the last year have mishandled other allegations of c. o. i. by one of their own. To his credit the TAG member involved has taken his own actions regarding his own c.o.i. which speaks very well of his personal integrity. In fact I suggest that his honest and appropriate behaviour puts the rest of TAG to shame, especially the Chair. One final comment though. Yes there likely is some personal loyalty involved towards this TAG member by his colleagues. While admirable that is still counter productive and potentially worse. Conflict of interest is serious enough that everyone are expected to declare at the start of each meeting that they are not in that position. Some members have lied from the beginning about it and this latest lack of transparency and forthrightness puts the inherent integrity of TAG at risk.