TAG STARTED WITH FIFTEEN MONTHS OF EXCELLENT LEADERSHIP FROM DR. RICHARD JACKSON

 Wow the things that Dr. Jackson said publicly about the Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE/MECP), Chemtura/Lanxess and CRA/GHD. Is it possible that he left rather than have to spend years defending himself from SLAPP suits? (SLAPP - Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). Now keep in mind that that unworthy and horrible thought just crossed my mind. I had earlier considered that pressure was put upon him by Mayor Shantz or Woolwich CAO Brenneman.

Most certainly Dr. Jackson did not pull his punches regarding his analysis of the entire cleanup and the pathetic efforts put into it. I have published here back in 2016 a number of Dr. Jackson's quotes and I have also sent copies of them to five of the six Woolwich councillors last February. Some of these various harsh quotes can still be found on-line (Woolwich Township website) in the Minutes of TAG meetings through late 2015 and throughout 2016. I must also add that TAG were supportive of Dr. Jackson's statements and proclamations about Chemtura, MOE, CRA  at that time. I wonder what has happened since as they certainly have backed off of confrontation with those guilty parties running the alleged Elmira cleanup. 

 

BACK ON TRACK WITH COUNCIL COMMUNICATION?

 As per Wednesday's post I've had a response from Councillor Schwindt. After some further thought he's no longer sure about which aquifers have been discussed at TAG and he is attempting to determine that. Good! That is progress. By now all the honest councillors must be realizing that holy cow maybe I'm right that there have been major reductions in shallow aquifer, on-site pumping and they've been accomplished surrepticiously or at least without proper discussion and debate. Of course it will be another whole can of worms explaining to them what the ramifications are and even then there will be the less honest councillors whispering in their ears that none of it is important anyways. 

What I have learned over the decades is that the stupid and uninformed just love to advise the stupider and less informed than themselves. In other words the uninformed want company. They were misinformed likely by senior staff and they want newer less experienced councillors to follow in their footsteps. Most of this poor advice comes quietly and privately. Hence informed people such as myself go into a meeting not knowing who has been told what and by whom. I end up arguing with someone who is totally without a clue but they have ben told privately beforehand certain "truths" that are complete bullsh*t. Hence we are arguing at cross purposes because I have no idea what they believe and where it came from.

In other words, anonymous bad advice is an art form for some of these professional dead weights. Also so is misdirecting councillors in order to keep certain friends of the Township on side.  After all if Lanxess for example are offering to donate towards say a splashpad in Breslau why tick them off here in Elmira over contaminated groundwater? Over time it becomes the tail wagging the dog and it just gets easier and easier especially with new councillors. 

   

HAVE THE SO & SO's FIGURED OUT YET WHY I'M DIRECTLY E-MAILING WOOLWICH COUNCILLORS INSTEAD OF GOING TO TAG?

 If they don't then they are intentionally obtuse. Their two committees of council are intended to limit public access, public scrutiny and public consultation. Lanxess and the Ministry of Environment have been living in polluter pig heaven for the last eight years. Now interestingly as I'll explain shortly, at the moment I'm feeling fonder of TAG than I have for at least a few years. Based upon an old set of Minutes I read this morning I've been  reminded that despite TAG's complete lack of nastiness, hostility or aggression; there are some honest and smart people on board.  Unfortunately due to peer pressure, societal pressure, employment and career concerns etc.; they are pushovers for government agencies and multinational corporations who don't give a crap for anyone but themselves and if that means destroying reputations, careers, livelihoods,  happiness then that's all in a day's work for them.   

Two days from now marks the three week anniversary of my sending my August 19, 2023 Blog post  to Woolwich Council versus RAC or TAG. Three weeks and very little has been resolved. Nathan Cadeau agreed (in writing) that the on-site Upper Aquifer (i.e. shallow aquifer) pumping has been seriously reduced over the last two decades. He then wimped out of proving his claim that there had been full discussion/debate about this at RAC/TAG or CPAC. Then councillor Eric Schwindt stepped up or so I thought.  He also claimed that he had listened to debate at TAG regarding pumping rates and reductions.  I very gently and carefully explained to Eric in writing that likely what he heard was TAG member Linda Dickson giving her usual TAG meeting discussion to the members in which she pointed out pumping failures and reductions mostly in the deeper Municipal Aquifers, both on and off the Lanxess property. I had expected Eric to get back to me with either a "Geez you're right, she was discussing deeper aquifers" or at worst a response such as "Geez now I'm not so sure which aquifers she was discussing." Instead since last Saturday, absolutely nothing from Eric or Woolwich Council. Very, very sad if running and hiding is the best that they've got.

I may later today, after some fun, send Council another e-mail. Yes it may very well be a tad critical. Maybe I should discuss conflicts of interest with them. Tons of that to go around. Here's an example. It's not a conflict of interest for councillors to go searching for TAG Minutes looking for specific discussions of greatly reduced UPPER AQUIFER pumping. It is also not a conflict of interest for Dave Brenneman, Ramin Ansari, MECP, GHD, Tiffany Svensson etc. to do so. The obvious reason is that their interests will be damaged if they do not find any such serious discussions.

Now here's where it gets weird. It's also a conflict of interest for me to go looking through the TAG Minutes for those discussions/debates. I've publicly stated my position that I do not believe that this huge issue has been seriously discussed and debated by RAC/TAG. However since when have I, CPAC or citizens in general been given any assistance from those at Woolwich Township?  Exactly. I learned decades ago that if you want any serious research done you have to do it yourself even if it were to prove your own position incorrect. It is a conflict of interest but I'm looking anyways. Nothing so far but got lots more to do. Life never has been fair especially regarding Uniroyal Chemical in Elmira.   

MUDDY WATERS DO NOT IMPROVE THE POTENTIAL FOR GREATER PARTICIPATION IN THE SO CALLED RAC/TAG REVIEW

 CPAC and myself do have an e-mail from each of two Woolwich councillors advising of a review of the Terms of Reference of RAC and TAG. Bluntly put a review solely of the Terms of Reference of RAC and TAG is grossly inadequate. Sandy Shantz. Mark Bauman, Chemtura and the Ministry of Environment fashioned RAC and TAG to be a toothless, polite and respectful greenwashing tool. On that basis it is my opinion that TAG in particular are an unbridled success. RAC are just a plain bunch of cheerleaders along for the ride.

Now don't get me wrong  TAG individually have some strong talent involved. Strong talent who will only be tolerated as long as they don't over reach. Over reach is defined as being critical and non-supportive of Lanxess, GHD, MECP, Woolwich Township etc. After all, first and foremost this is a club of right thinkers. Everybody has to be on board and supportive of everybody else otherwise there would be chaos and uncertainty for the public. Presenting a united front is far more important than actually remediating anything.

Members have come and gone constantly. Bill Barr, Joe Kelly, Pat McLean, Katharina Richter, Dustin Martin  to name a few. New folks with little to no knowledge of the history of the site are brought on regularly. It does help to keep things muddy.

Further mud for me surrounds who is being invited to the party. How many citizens know that one TAG member is neither a Canadian citizen nor a resident of Woolwich Township? So much for local, citizen input. Will the review be stacked as usual, heavily in favour of Lanxess and their interests? Who will be the moderator or Chair? Dear God not Sandy! When and where will this review be? Will the removal/discontinuance of RAC/TAG be up for discussion or was that statement by councillor Nathan Cadeau inaccurate? Most importantly will the issue of decades of reduced shallow aquifer (i.e. Upper Aquifer) groundwater pumping be at least somewhat settled prior to the review? This is, pardon the pun. a watershed issue. If as certainly appears obvious right now, TAG have utterly failed to see and find the gross reductions in on-site shallow aquifer pumping to hydraulically reduce the quantity of heavily contaminated groundwater discharging to the Canagagigue Creek; then clearly their efficacy is beyond salvage.  Until or unless the public are clearly and honestly advised that somehow TAG were addressing this issue and doing it publicly, then they are fit only for the trash heap. Even without their failures on that front they have enough other failures including not advising and rallying the public to stand up for the cleanup of the Canagagigue Creek as Lanxess have publicly stated that their vaunted Risk Assessment says that it isn't necessary. Absolutely contemptible and if TAG don't say so publicly then they too are contemptible.

REMOVE RAC & TAG (DISCONTINUANCE), UACTS STILL IN LIMBO

 

Well things are certainly ongoing.. After councillor Nathan Cadeau's full blown retreat, Woolwich Council have stepped up. Possibly. I sent an e-mail addressed to Woolwich Council on Saturday morning. Saturday afternoon Councillor Eric Schindt responded. His e-mail advised me that Council are soliciting people to discuss new Terms of Reference for RAC and TAG. No comment from him regarding Nathan's claim that Discontinuance was or was not still on the table. That is strike one. Then Eric advised that "pumping rates" have been discussed at the TAG meetings he has attended this year. O.K. that is not a strike presuming that Eric simply doesn't know that there are a ton of different "pumping rates" involved. There are on-site pumping rates. There are off-site pumping rates. There are Municipal Aquifer pumping rates. There are Upper Aquifer (shallow aquifer) pumping rates and on and on. For new councillors not to know this is not a big deal. For them not to get informed very damn soon is. 

So at the moment both the issue of RAC & TAG Discontinuance being on the table or not has not been confirmed by the whole Council. Secondly the issue of the Upper Aquifer Pumping & Treatment System (UACTS) huge reductions in pumping ongoing for years is also not settled. Nathan agreed there were large reductions but claimed RAC & TAG public discussion of the issue. In my response to Eric Schwindt later on Saturday afternoon I explained  to him the differences in the pumping rates being discussed at TAG  (deeper Municipal Aquifer etc.) versus the shallow aquifer on Lanxess's south-west corner which is the huge and significant issue that I have raised. 

So are Council playing Whack-A-Mole with me or is this legitimate? I will play it as legitimate until or unless the smell gets way too strong. I am also keeping both the Woolwich Observer and CPAC (Citizens Public Advisory Comm.) in the loop. 

WOOLWICH COUNCIL NOT LOOKING GOOD

 Can I call Nathan's apparent position change a trip to the dark side? Or has he always been one of those persons who aligns himself not with what's right but with those with the power and influence? One thing for certain is that he is a smooth operator who however takes risks. He was hiding behind someone else's opinions and speaking to me as if they were his own. Once I had him pinned down with agreeing that there has been significant pumping reductions in the shallow aquifer on the Uniroyal/Lanxess site then he was in trouble. Undoubtedly he was told by whomever he was fronting that these reductions had all been approved properly by RAC/TAG or a previous iteration (CPAC). As soon as I suggested that he produce the Minutes of those alleged public meetings indicating full and vigorous discussion of such an incredibly significant change to the cleanup, Nathan and his shadow panicked.

I gave Nathan a second chance to start looking for the documentation that he claimed existed. Nope he wasn't interested. He bailed with his tail between his legs like a whipped dog. So here's the rub. I already know that two of our current council are a problem namely the mayor and newbie Kayla Grant. Her public comments regarding the consultants and their nonsense including non-existent clay caps over the former Bolender Landfill, quite frankly were embarrassingly complimentary and solicitous. She appeared more eager to please the powers to be than to do the right thing about yet more trucks opening up shop in downtown Elmira. With Nathan's recent behaviour, albeit he is a very smooth bullsh*t artist, then the citizens are in trouble. I still have hope for Bonnie B., Evan B.and Eric S. although I know there will be instances where possibly their pro business positions may conflict somewhat with mine. That is O.K. as long as they hold strong to their principles and ethics.    

Allegedly, as per Nathan, Council's "Review" of RAC/TAG has the option of Discontinuation on the table. Was that a blatant lie or the truth? To date although Woolwich Council were cc'd on all correspondence between Nathan and I, nobody has seen fit to confirm or deny that. That is worrisome and suggests to me that it is NOT on the table but they don't want to undermine Nathan's now greatly reduced credibility. Secondly Council now know that my claims of greatly reduced on-site shallow aquifer pumping are accurate. Do they not feel that a confirmation or denial as to whether the issue was ever brought to RAC/TAG for public discussion is important? It is way too quiet at Council right now and that is not a good sign.   

NATHAN"S BLUFF WAS CALLED - AND HE'S CUT & RUN

 Hmm I wonder if this means that the tutorial I promised Woolwich Council is still on or not. The tutorial was to get them at least a little bit up to speed on some of the ongoing cleanup going on at the Lanxess site. Then after that a sit down with CPAC (Citizens Public Advisory Committee) to discuss the throwing out of RAC and TAG would make more sense. Afterall if it is 100% accurate that RAC & TAG have completely either missed the gutting of the shallow aquifer pump & treat or worse yet knew about it and only discussed it privately (in camera etc.) then that alone would be grounds to get rid of them. Frankly the grounds have been there for a very long time. What I found peculiar was that nobody on Woolwich Council felt the need to confirm Nathan's claim that discontinuance of RAC and TAG was on the table. That was my first tip that something was very wrong.

Then of course was Nathan's remarkable transformation from council newbie into a hydrogeologist. Somebody was answering for him yet he felt no compunction to man up and admit that he was fronting for :  David?  Tiffany?  Ramin? or whomever.

Thirdly despite every opportunity to cut and run when I lost patience with his bull Nathan hung in there trying to convince me that nothing was wrong with the most highly contaminated area on the Uniroyal/Lanxess site having it's hydraulic containment reduced. He claimed in writing that I was correct about the greatly reduced pumping rates but rationalized it by saying that the reductions had been fully discussed in public forum through the RAC and TAG committees or a previous iteration. I believed then and believe now that that is bullsh*t. 

So of course I called Nathan's bluff on that. All RAC and TAG public meetings are recorded. There is a Support Person from Woolwich Staff who writes up the Minutes of each meeting. For about seven years it was Lisa Schaefer but has now changed. There is also a Chair of TAG (Tiffany Svensson) paid about $30,000 /year for part time work. Maybe she as TAG Chair could find those alleged discussions. Instead of any of that, Nathan appears to have cut and run. He's refusing to state that he or anybody will look for the alleged public discussions. He's making excuses. Or maybe those discussions never took place in public if at all. You can guess what I think.