At least part of it was written up. That would be the part that discussed how TAG has been functioning. The reporter did a good job although a couple of quotes from member Sebastian Seibel-Achenbach were missed such as his accurately describing TAG as "tame". My comment here in the Advocate was that what was needed was a watchdog and instead TAG were a "lapdog". Sad but true. Nobody on TAG wants to offend the powers that be.
Sebastian however was quoted as saying "The reality is that (TAG) lacks the teeth and the knowledge to be able to do a credible job. And the reality is that when confronted by specialists in the field, we find ourselves on this committee at a disadvantage." Further he added "And consequently, there's a tendency for this committee to be bulldozed because of that professional accreditation that is presented to us. And the reality is that some of that professionalism isn't ironclad."
A couple of members agreed with Sebastian that more peer reviews by independent experts could be helpful and as well there was agreement that TAG needed to better communicate with the public. Other TAG members did not agree to either. Overall Sebastian 's comments about TAG's weaknesses were not supported by Susan Bryant and Wilson Lau both with agendas I view as not being in the public interest.
Sebastian spoke truth to power and was not supported by those in favour of the status quo including the MECP, Lanxess, GHD, likely Stantec and TAG in general.
No comments:
Post a Comment