UPCOMING DATES

Or at least that is unless they get postponed as they did last year. What a great deal for Lanxess. Unlike Uniroyal, Crompton and Chemtura who mostly faced the public on a monthly basis; these buggers can bullshit, bafflegab and blow smoke and not have to face the music literally sometimes for six months. I'm referring here to the RAC (Remediation Advisory Committee) not the TAG (Technical Advisory Group) committee. While they don't meet as often as UPAC and CPAC did nevertheless they have been more regular than RAC by far. Thanks can go to Sandy Shantz for that freebie. Of course Lanxess and the MOE are not obliged to attend TAG meetings and thus rarely do.

TAG are scheduled to meet next on Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 6:30 pm. The Agenda usually comes out the Friday before the meeting. RAC are scheduled to meet a week later (Sept. 27) at 4 pm. That Agenda also comes out several days prior to the meeting. Possibly TAG at least will be discussing among other things the Interceptor Trench satellite photos along with the newest information, Affidavits etc. recently unearthed. Unearthed I might add not from the Township's archives but from mine. The Township have flatly refused access to those archives by CPAC members in the past. Information is power and they don't like to share.

THE WOOLWICH OBSERVER DISAPPOINT YET AGAIN

It's called ethics. It's called walking the talk. It's called standards. Whatever you want to call it, the Observer no longer have it. RIP.

My post here yesterday was titled "Ending On A Whine - Mark Bauman". This was my response to the Observer's story titled "Ending on a high note". The Observer's reporter did a story on retiring councillor Mark Bauman. Fair enough he's been a Woolwich councillor for the last eighteen years. Granted in some circles in this Region that no longer carries much if any panache. Woolwich has been publicly exposed for their small town, inbred?, second and third rate governance. Incidents such as the 2016 attempt to shut down Delegations to council regarding Chemtura, the masquerade last spring of appointing Julie-Anne Herteis to council over ten other, much better qualified candidates and the manufactured crisis to remove CPAC in 2015 because Chemtura and the MOE were crying for their mommies.

The Observer actually were on the public's side in response to these incidents. The Observer reported the facts and in their Editorials made it clear where they stood. They referred to Woolwich's embarassing act in regards to trying to shut down citizen Delegations. They initially supported citizens such as Dr. Dan Holt, Richard Clausi and myself in regards to half of Woolwich Council being found in contravention of the Municipal Election Act (MEA). The Observer questioned the claims of Mark Bauman and Sandy Shantz regarding CPAC's alleged "dysfunction", both a Mark epithet and a usual political fallback position when you really have nothing to justify your criticism. The Observer knew there was dysfunction but it lay at the feet of Chemtura and the MOE, not CPAC.

So why am I disappointed with the Observer? They have not published comments from two different Woolwich citizens in regards to yesterday's Observer article about Mark Bauman. There were numerous errors of fact in that article and Richard Clausi as well as myself politely pointed them out yesterday in the Observer's Comment section at the end of the Mark Bauman article. We were told we were awaiting "moderation". Well we are still waiting! Are these comments acceptable only if they support the Observer's position? Have the Observer decided that they don't want anything in their newspaper right before the election that might hurt Patrick's chances of re-election? Keep in mind our comments do not remotely reflect upon Patrick, only upon Mark Bauman.

ENDING ON A WHINE - MARK BAUMAN

Just a few factual errors in today's Woolwich Observer article titled "Ending on a high note". The Observer reporter claims that Mark failed to follow "new" provisions in the province's Municipal Act. No offence to the reporter but clearly right off the bat he's just writing what Mark tells him, otherwise he would know that the provision insisting that ALL candidates MUST file an expense report was not new. Secondly it's not the Municipal Act of Ontario it is the Municipal Elections Act (MEA). Those are two entirely different and separate pieces of legislation.

Secondly Mark was not "tied up in legal wranglings" at the Superior Court of Justice. Nor was I "...able to take me (Mark) to court
and cause a lot of grief." There were no legal wranglings because Mark and his lawyer as well as the Township did not advise the citizen (me) who informed the Municipal Clerk of the infraction, that it had gone to court. The proceedings took ten minutes maximum as the Township supported Mark's reinstatement and no one else was given the opportunity to oppose it. It was Mark himself who took it to court, not I.

"It was a huge expense for the taxpayer...", "it was a huge waste of time and effort - court time." Right, ten minutes of court time. Blame the taxpayers' expenses on the Municipal Clerk, Val Hummel. She is the one who failed to enforce the MEA by not insisting that Mark follow the black and white provincial law that explicitly states that ALL candidates, including acclaimed candidates MUST file expense reports (ie. Financial Statements). Acclaimed candidates can still have expenses for example by spending thousands of dollars on campaign signs,advertising etc. Therefore they like every other candidate MUST file Financial Statements. That is and has been the law for a very long time. Having the Municipal Clerk run interference for a candidate who fails to observe the law by telling a citizen, in front of a witness, that a) yes Mark's Financial Statement is on line and then b) telling the citizen that oh his Financial Statement is on her desk should be punishable by law as well but somehow Woolwich, Mark and their supporters overlooked that.

"And it was basically for not putting an "X" on box when I handed in my expense report." What kind of crap is this Mark? You didn't hand in any expense report until I called you on it. And Woolwich Township were so stupid they let you do this at least twice before that. And I'm the bad guy here?

Some of us refer to Mark as Mr. Flip Flop. I believe that he talks out of both sides of his mouth. In other words he tailors his comments to the audience in front of him. If it's the Chamber of Commerce etc. then Chemtura/Lanxess are the salt of the earth. In a private setting with environmentalists then he states that they need to do so much more.

This is the same Mark Bauman who once inaccurately advised Woolwich Council publicly that he was proud to have now kicked me off of CPAC twice. Trouble is that was the first time he did it (2011). Later on in 2013 he voted against me being reinstated when CPAC went to Council unanimously recommending that I be reinstated. And Mark whines in this Observer article that someone who disliked him, took him to court and caused him a lot of grief. Poor baby. You're lucky I didn't kick you in the eggshells, you sniveling piece of crap.

UNIROYAL/CHEMTURA BACK IN THE CRAP YET AGAIN

How do our local idiots, political or otherwise, get away with their "Oh we need to talk politely to Chemtura" shtick? Eight years ago this month (September 2010) Chemtura sprayed Elmira with BLE-25, a rubber additive. This toxic tar consists of diphenylamine and acetone. Acetone of course is best known as nail polish remover. Unfortunately it appears to have similar properties with automobile paint finishes. It also stuck to houses, playground equipment, lawns and outdoor furniture. All in all a mess. Of course just like all the other "fugitive emissions" it was an accident. The problem is it's only sort of an accident. A rupture disc inside a pipe did exactly what it was designed to do. That is it ruptured, spewing the contents of a pressure vessel up the exhaust stack and into all our mutual air. Thanks for sharing Chemtura, NOT.

The other problem is that the very next month other air complaints were flooding back into Chemtura for their evening and weekend releases, shades of 1998 until 2000. The only good news is that fed up folks in Elmira finally turfed a number of long time Uniroyal supporters and apologists, masquerading as Woolwich councillors. The only one who escaped that fate was Mark Bauman over in St. Jacobs.

Actually there was another problem. Yes Chemtura owned up to it this time, unlike other releases they had whether into the air (chlorine) or into the Elmira Sewage Treatment Plant (toluene). The problem was nobody sounded the town siren warning residents to shelter in place. Yes cars and houses and more got sprayed but students at recess, outdoor phys-ed classes etc. didn't need to if either the Township or the company had gotten their act together. Unfortunately it seems as if it takes a crisis, a disaster or more to get people involved and the dead wood removed. Politicians are masters at manufacturing crises, just look at Sandy and Mark inventing a non-existent CPAC crisis just under four years ago. Well in a sense I guess there was a crisis in that both Chemtura and the Ontario Ministry of Environment were screaming for their mommies. In rode Sandy to save the day, or at least Chemtura and the MOE's day.

WILF GETS TAKEN DOWN A PEG OR TWO

The Woolwich Observer published a Letter To The Editor on Saturday May 3, 2008 titled "CPAC generates plenty of questions but offers very few answers". This Letter was written by Dr. Henry Regier. It may well be this letter that set Dave Brenneman, CAO of Woolwich Township, on the path of no private meetings by committees of council, at least for a brief period.

Henry took aim at private breakfast meetings promoted and called by CPAC Chair, Pat Mclean. Henry appropriately asked whether or not they were paid for by Chemtura Canada. Henry also noted that the character of these breakfast meetings changed over time. For many of us work precluded any ability to attend breakfast meetings the majority of the time. Unsurprisingly no such constraints hobbled Pat or Susan Bryant who seemed most supportive of them. How easy it must have been to sell your ideas and positions to a small subset of the voting members of CPAC. A subset that excluded some of the best informed CPAC members.

Henry also took aim at consultancies, particularly he wanted to know the specific details as to who paid for them, who called for the consultant to attend and exactly how was this consultant then accountable to CPAC. Henry specifically named Wilf Ruland and asked some pretty direct questions as to just exactly who was Wilf reporting to and working for. Henry also pressed the point as to the extent of this consultant's independence namely: "Knowing that the company was paying his consultant fees (if that was the case) would it be fair to speculate that a consultant's enthusiasm to press potentially embarrassing questions may have been moderated? On some public occasions, may such a consultant have felt it necessary, partly because of his own financial interests involved, to contradict one or more members of CPAC to the advantage of the company's position on issues in which the expertise of those CPAC members clearly exceeded his own expertise?"

Wilf Ruland did good things for CPAC and for the public. He also, with help and supervision from two CPAC members, did great harm to public consultation.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS COMPLIANCE AUDIT COMMITTEE (MECAC)

Well more power to the Regional Clerk Kris Fletcher for her sense of professionalism and humour. Her response to my Application to serve on the upcoming MECAC is as follows:

"Dear Mr. Marshall:

Re: Municipal Elections Compliance Audit Committee (MECAC) Appointments

I am writing to express appreciation for your interest in serving on the Municipal Elections Compliance Audit Committee (MECAC). The matter of appointments to this committee was reviewed by the Area Clerks in August 2018.

Although you were unsuccessful at this time, your application will remain on file should a vacancy occur during the term of this committee. Thank you for your willingness to serve as a representative.

Yours truly "


Kris Fletcher


Now while that was very nicely written I think we all know that the comments around the table were less than nice. I can especially hear our clerk, Val sounding off on how one Mr. Marshall dragged that really nice Mark, Scott and Sandy through the mud etc. etc. That in a nutshell is the problem with the whole process. Municipal Clerks are actually supposed to be somewhat independent of their municipal councils and their duty is supposed to be to the province and to the Municipal Act and eventually to the people being governed. It just isn't so and Val is a prime example. She personally broke the law in her defence of certain Council members and in her failure to immediately remove both Mark and Sandy from Council for their serious violations, as ordered by the Municipal Elections Act.

In my Application to MECAC I kind of rubbed their noses in the fact that they too screwed up royally here in Elmira with their failures to act according to law. At least we hope their actions were incompetence and not deceit.

I trust everyone took note in Ms. Fletcher's first paragraph that it is the area Clerks who decide who will be on MECAC and hence responsible for overseeing that we have somewhat honest elections. That is precisely why the committee last time had so many former politicians and good old boys on it. These Clerks certainly don't want to see anyone independent and unbeholden to the status quo on there. They could cause "trouble" if they were to strictly enforce the law of the land after all.

LANXESS'S LIKELY ILLEGAL EAST SIDE INTERCEPTOR TRENCH

YESTERDAY'S POST HAS A LINK TO A FANTASTIC SATELLITE PHOTO THAT CLEARLY SHOWS MANMADE WORKS ON THE FORMER UNIROYAL SITE

which likely are an illegal diversion of contaminated groundwater onto the neighbour's farm. To date neither Chemtura, Lanxess nor the Ontario Ministry of Environment have responsibly or reasonably commented on this matter.