ITEMS 4.2 & 6 ON TONITE'S TAG AGENDA

The first Item (4.2) deals with "Written Submissions Review".  I am the author of several of those written submissions and they are listed in Item 6. "Correspondence and Documents received since last TAG meeting".  There are many other submissions primarily from Lanxess Canada. I would suggest that as a general rule my written submissions to TAG over the last five years plus have been intentionally ignored as much as possible. Why wouldn't they be? They do not remotely follow the script set by Chemtura/Lanxess/MECP. They also certainly do not make the Chair of TAG's (Tiffany Svensson) life any easier. She is paid approximately $1,000 per meeting, in my opinion, to keep things on track- that would be the Uniroyal/Lanxess/MECP  track.                                                                                                            ...........................................................................................                                                                               I am not suggesting here blatant corruption. Who needs blatant corruption when subtle corruption works just as well? A simple behind the scenes word to loyal TAG members that moi (Mr. Marshall)  is really not to be given credibility due to this or that alleged peccadillo/infraction/personality flaw?) is likely to do the trick. Of course as these are private defamations how can I counteract them or dispute them?                      ....................................................................................................                                                                   All my written submissions to TAG are seriously researched. They are defensible. While apparently TAG are under exactly zero obligation to publicly review my submissions nevertheless my submissions are on the record for perhaps a better audience down the road. An audience who are not beholden to Lanxess, GHD or the Ontario Ministry of Environment. Let's see if this evening there is anything more than a token public perusal of my submissions. Frankly usually there isn't even that much. Also keep in mind that if TAG do discuss them and make any verbal factual errors, I the author am not allowed to correct them on a point of order or anything else. It's called muzzling, pretend public consultation and censorship.                                        ..............................................................................................                                                                          By the way my submissions from last January to a couple of weeks ago include topics as diverse as DNAPLS, Dilbert cartoons dealing with pathetic data in reports, inadequate remediation technologies, local landfills impacting the Creek Risk Assessment, many other industrial sources of creek pollution upstream and downstream of Uniroyal/Lanxess etc.