We have two views of the ongoing urban conflict at the Belconnen Community Council.
Overnight the insurgent Comrade Watts (seen recently sporting a beard in Manuka perhaps in sympathy with the Pogos) has sent in his reply.
I refer to the following article: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/meeting-for-local-council-erupts-into-power-brawl-20130320-2ggf6.html
I am most disappointed. As I stated to your colleague Mr Mark Sawa on the evening of the BCC meeting, I was contactable via email, not mobile phone at present. Given the content, contact with me or indeed other members of the BCC could have avoided tone of the article. Anyone who was at the meeting could have stated there was no “brawl” for power; the vast majority of attendees wished for consensus.
Now that the Canberra Times article has been published, I am forced to clarify, from my perspective, the following:
· Mr Brian Rynehart is not to be trusted as an independent commentator despite being Public Officer, and his bias should be disclosed- for example, despite publicly committing to adhering to an outcome from the Office of Regulatory Services (ORS), at Tuesday’s meeting he was attempting to deny the progression of a new AGM despite the view of ORS that we should hold one, to the concern of many BCC members;
· at the September AGM, there was no political stack, despite media reports at the time- there was a dirt sheet distributed by someone at an unrecognised meeting in November which falsely declared certain BCC members to be members of the Liberal Party – the entire claim of a political stack is a rubbish lie, spawned by childish conspiracy theories which says much about those who are unhappy with the democratic result;
· there is nothing wrong with wishing competence over ineptitude, and the media’s handling of this problem as a party political plaything has been distressing to BCC members;
· the BCC AGM in September 2012 was declared invalid as a result of the actions of the Public Officer, despite the wishes of the legitimately elected Executive Committee, after that meeting;
· Ms Gourgaud has never been recognised by ORS as having been “reinstated”, no matter how many times her supporters claim as such;
· ORS has at no stage, to my knowledge, supported the accusations of the Public Officer against me (in fact, it is public knowledge that ORS had to publicly refute claims made by certain BCC Committee members last year);
· I have complained to ORS of the Public Officer’s unbecoming behaviour, and am awaiting a response from that agency;
· the person who declared a wish at Tuesday’s meeting to no longer be involved with the BCC (as reported in the article) was not a Committee member (it should be noted, basically, every person with a connection to Belconnen is a general “member” under the current constitution);
· the person who declared a wish to no longer be involved with the BCC, with witnesses, seemingly wanted to physically assault me (I declined – twice), when I in fact had not engaged with him at all that evening- it was an entirely unprovoked threat on his part;
· the person who declared a wish to no longer be involved with the BCC made public claims against me, which were personally hurtful, and it is unfortunate that my drive for professionalism and competence on the BCC has been skewed to damage the reputation of an outgoing President whom, on my election in September, I publicly praised for her years of service and I wished for her continued involvement;
· the person who declared a wish to no longer be involved with the BCC, it should be declared, is the partner of the person defeated at the September AGM, so I am willing to forgive his flawed behaviour on Tuesday night, given his emotional involvement;
· my belief is that the only other person to prematurely leave the meeting (without having previously declared a prior commitment) was a member who wished to hear of Pegasus and thought BCC business should be considered after the presentation, contrary to the approved agenda – a more professional handling of the meeting would have avoided any dispute whatsoever; and
· evidence of the meeting was seemingly recorded on video, and should be available from the Public Officer.
If Mr Rhynehart thought Tuesday’s meeting was a fiasco, I suggest he adheres to the agenda next time he chairs such a meeting. Please note, in preparation for any potential rebuttal, the agenda was not invented via a Liberal stack but, rather, the Secretary. I repeat, my only wish is for the BCC to be functional and in adherence to the law; there should be nothing to hide.
Here in the bunker we remain intrigued as to why the sleepy Belconnen Community Council has so much skin in the game.