page19

The moving finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy piety nor wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a line,
Nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.
-The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam

We don't know whether Councillor Amanda Duncan-Strelec is the philosophical type who would care to cancel even a word after she's had a skinful even when dawn breaks and the brutality of another day appears Cr Duncan Strelec might, over a cup of tea   have one last chance to recant and save the stamp for another day. No. Soon her correspondence will begin its journey through the umbilical labyrinths of Australia Post.   A few deep breaths and no regrets just like Peggy Lee sings it in the wee small hours with only the distant bark of a dog to give the whole thing the poignancy it deserves.

When Cr Duncan-Strelec sent a document (see right below) embellished/annotated with what she believed were a few home truths about the recipient, Graeme Richardson   Borderline looked back to see if there was some type of cadence in her modus operandi when it comes to her petulant diatribes against those who don't concur with her rather troubled view of the world. Another diatribe unsuccessfully submitted to the Border Mail (right) back in June 2008 as a letter to the editor is almost conclusive proof that both documents are from the same disturbed hand. This late night harangue against numerous adversaries lurking in the darkness lock the doors, fasten the windows. A little something to quell anxious nerves. As you can see Cr Duncan-Strelec's use of syntax (the arrangement of words and phrases) give a good indication of her state of mind. Self pity ,denunciations, threats, sinister intentions tortured minds. Much in the style and imagery of 161th century Dutch Painter, Hieronymus Bosch, who really did know the difference between darkness and light, and not a slither of grey between them.

Then again one well might ask themselves is Cr Duncan-Strelec's sense of darkness and those that inherit it all part of some plan to regain some of her fading glory back in the days, The days of light. 1995 Amanda Duncan-Strelec, Mayor, City of Albury. First epoch of light and again in 2006-2007, the second epoch of Light before darkness again prevailed when she was usurped by a Stuart Baker. Then she told anyone who was prepared to listen that she wanted to spend more time with her daughter in Melbourne. Such a reason is a common variation in politics these days when either you haven't got the numbers, or are forced to resign due to some indiscretion.

It all began as a simple submission on Council's draft budget, and a subsequent submission addendum to Council. After all the Albury City Council positively encouraged submissions it said so in writing. In the May 11 issue of Accent on Albury; …Giving residents an opportunity to have their say on what's being proposed under the draft Operational Plan is an important component of the budget process… No doubt even the spin doctors that authored such a claim had a lot of trouble keeping that one down. As Mr Richardson was to find out the invitation is mainly a public relations exercise to give Albury residents the impression that such submissions would be properly evaluated by council. Wrong. Naturally the person making the submission would have received the obligatory letter thanking him or her for their interest and that their submission had been considered at the highest level probably by some lowly clerk who has a bit of a laugh before dispatching the document to the appropriate recycling bin.

There are however residents who make proposals and are prepared to follow them through to see they get the appropriate attention. In this instance it was Mr Graeme Richardson's submission on the application for a special(rates) variation by Albury City Council to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal the agendum was that instead of Albury City Council spending $60,000 to rebadge the Albury Sports Stadium to the Lauren Jackson Stadium consideration should be given to getting a naming right deal which could have brought revenue into council coffers. Mr Richardson rightly proposed that because of the multi-use of the stadium that a court within the stadium be named after Lauren Jackson. Fair Enough.

While most submissions are dispatched to the dustbin, submissions from the likes of Mr Richardson are given more serious attention by this we mean not in a positive sense, but rather as a opportunity to hold forth on the shortcomings of the author of the submission in this instance Mr Richardson. Cr Duncan-Strelec's addled comparison of Mr Richardson and Lauren and the suggestion that he …have a toilet named after him …as you with all your p---s and wind (you) have nothing but s--- to claim credit for is particularly telling as beneath all I'm a lady bit respectability Cr Strelec is a rather uncouth type. Then again you could possibly analyse her toilet humour in a Fraudian context but that might open up a whole sewage pit of worms.

Mr Richardson has lodged a code of conduct violation against the General Manager and the Mayor, Cr Glachan for their failure to properly his address his criticism of Cr Duncan-Strelec's behaviour.

You can be sure nothing much will come of it.

Not like when Councillor Wareham was dubiously convicted of a code of conduct violation a few years back that when Cr Duncan-Strelec and her bullyboy protégé Cr Henk van de Ven were baying for Wareham's blood and they got it aided and abetted by the Les Tomich the GM of Albury City Council, Les is so beholden to Cr Duncan-Strelec for her switching of her vote at the last moment for the position of general manager in 2008 that Mr tomach owes her bigtime.

However Mr Tomich had to be seen to taking decisive action. So he emailed councillors.
Mon, Jun 6, 2011, 2:14 PM

Good afternoon Councillors
On Monday 30 May 2011 Council considered its 2011/12 budget and as part of its consideration received and noted a late submission by a ratepayer, Mr Graeme Richardson. After due consideration, Council resolved to adopt the 2011/12 budget without alteration.
On Wednesday 1 June 2011 anonymous correspondence was received by Mr Richardson. I have attached a copy for your information. The correspondence comprises a photocopy of the original correspondence sent by Mr Richardson with several handwritten notations thereon. The correspondence is unsigned.
Mr Richardson has advised the writer that he finds the correspondence "offensive" and requests Council to identify the writer. He has further indicated that his potential courses of action may include reporting of the matter to ICAC and/or the Police.
Accordingly, I would respectfully request that you advise me whether or not you were the person responsible so that I may advise the complainant in an attempt to limit the damage to Council's reputation that would no doubt occur should the matter proceed by way of a public and/or independent investigation.
I would request your response by 4.00pm Wednesday 8 June 2011.
Cheers
Les Tomich
General Manager
Executive
AlburyCity

Cheers indeed.

Cr Duncan-Strelec responded a few hours later to Mr Tomich and her fellow councillors.

I find that Mr Richardson's hysterical response to this letter is far worse than the letter itself. If Mr Richardson intends to pursue this matter no doubt a copy of his response will also be included in the complaint for deliberation by whomever he reports it to.

I would also ask that if he pursues this, the previous complaint against me by Mr Richardson, which proved to be groundless, is also included to show whomever he chooses to report it to that Mr Richardson is a recidivist when it comes to complaining about Council and/or Councillors.

The mayor Alice Glachan pitched in with her bit. Obviously Mayor Glachan was completely out of her depth at first declaring on Prime television that Cr Duncan-Strelec's conduct fell in the precinct of free speech. On June 27 Cr Glachan sent a memo to all councillors to clarify the situation.   It was obviously a collaboration between her and the GM Les Tomuch it's got Tomich mindspeak all over it. That together with Cr Glachan's confused perceptions resulted in an almost ludicrous pronouncement.

…I note, however there is a fine line between comments made personally/ individually by a Councillor and the public's perception that they are representative of the Council's or another Councillors opinion. Cr Glachan continues; There is a fine line between what would be considered offensive or otherwise by some members of our community…

Cr Glachan failed to note that the fine line is not so fine when it comes the Criminal Code Act.

The CRIMINAL CODE ACT 1995 SCHEDULE

Schedule to an Act passed by the Parliament of the
Commonwealth.

Division 471 -- Postal offences

Subdivision A--General postal offences

471.12   Using a postal or similar service to menace, harass or cause offence

A person is guilty of an offence if:

(a) the person uses a postal or similar service; and
(b) the person does so in a way (whether by the method of use or the content of a communication, or both) that reasonable persons would regard as being, in
all the circumstances, menacing, harassing or offensive.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.

At the Council meeting Monday June 27 Cr Duncan-Stelec refused to say sorry. It was never on the cards anyhow because Cr Duncan'Strelec has developed such a delusionary sense of self righteousness that she has nothing to feel sorry for. Cr Philomenia Sawyer was the only councillor who condemned Cr Duncan-Strelec's behaviour, Cr Paul Wareham most probably would have done the same if he had not taken three months leave of absence following the death of his son, Clint. Why no other responded is councillor responded is no surprise. It is no secret that most of the councillors are are so sycophantically obliged to the GM and senior staff that their objectivity has become clouded in self-interest . Borderline once suggested Les Tomich adopt Henk - heck why stop at Henk .

As we said we don't like Mr Richardsons chances in bringing a Code of Conduct Violation against the General Manager Les Tomich and the mayor, Cr Glachan for failing to respond adequately to Mr Richardson's complaint against Cr Duncan-Strelec.

Why?

The adjudicator in this matter will be Gerry Holmes. Mr Holmes was appointed by the Les Tomich as a part of the new Model Code of Conduct regime. The old Code of Conduct for those unfamiliar with the times had a Conduct Committee one would well be forgiven for describing it as kangaroo Court. When Cr Wareham was prosecuted for a Code of Conduct violation, the then old Code of Conduct Committee who brought the action against Cr Wareham was the Mayor, Cr Duncan-Strelec, the general manager, Les Tomich and the Council solicitor Brian Curphey one of the principals of the law firm Kell Moore who do all the legal work for Albury City Council. Money for jam. Borderline observed at the time that Mr Curphey's investigation to Council was sloppy, unprofessional and patently unprofessional that abrogated any sense of procedural justice Cr Wareham was entitled to. In the new Model Code of Conduct for Councillors Mr Gerry Holmes is a type of facilitator to investigate the matter and adjudicate on the matter at $400 plus an hour it's quite a lucrative business. Gerry's experience in the Local Government industry and the numerous inquiries, junkets, workshops and other bits of expensive counsel he provides his services Mr Holmes could be well be considered the golden boy of the local government industry.

One matter that showed just how the new code of conduct is just as compromised as the old Code of Conduct occurred a few years back when Cr Hull told Cr Duncan-Strelec that Cr Sawyer had told Cr Hull's wife Barbara that Cr Hull was having an affair with Cr Duncan-Strelec. As the story developed Cr Hull hoping to extricate himself from the rather sordid matter then told Cr Duncan-Strelec that Cr Sawyer had told Vivien Voss a former councillor and noted adversary of Cr Duncan-Strelec. Gerry was brought in to investigate the matter when Cr Sawyer launched a code of conduct violation against Cr Duncan-Strelec. Cr Duncan-Strelec then filed a code of conduct violation against Cr Sawyer. Mr Holmes investigated the matter during which Cr Hull and his wife had lost their enthusiasm for any further part in the matter. Barbara Hull refused point blank to discuss the matter with Mr Holmes. Cr Hull agreed to speak to Holmes to tell him that he didn't wish to comment on the matter! Couldn't he have just sent him an email

After many months Gerry returned his verdict and concluded …the absence of a single witness who could personally confirm that the statements were made by Cr Sawyer there can only be one conclusion. The complaint is dismissed on the basis of a lack of credible evidence to support the allegation... Cr Hull who started the whole rumour got off scot-free.

The last Code of Conduct Committee complaint about Cr Duncan-Strelec calling Mr Richardonson a 'sanctimonious prat' was was a bit of a sideshow. Cr Hull's conduct verged on criminality. He should have been thrown off Council but it was never to be because Cr Hull is so acquiescent to Les Tomich that it was never going to be any other way.

The GM couldn't have written a better conclusion himself.

That's why Cr Duncan-Strelec won't be called to give an account of her actions because she knows Les Tomich owes her one (on an ongoing basis) and that the councillors are mainly such a spineless lot who put self-interest and their venal future prospects before the interests of Albury.

At the time of writing Cr Duncan-Strelec had taken a full page ad in News Weekly again explaining her position. Of course she would have paid for it but was it her money?

More on that in a day or two.

Madame Mayor,

I would like to begin this statement by saying I accept full responsibility for all comments and assertions made in the following statement, in no way have I been influenced by any other person.

Two weeks ago I sent an unsigned letter to Mr Richardson. I would have been quite happy to sign the letter, however as I knew Mr Richardson would know who it was, I did not see the need to. He as much as admitted that in his letter to the General Manager in response to my letter that he knew who it was. Everybody knew I sent the letter, it was no secret. I sent it tongue in cheek.

Before I go on about the consequences of my actions, I need to put into perspective why I sent the letter. This Council has put up with constant accusations year after year from Mr Richardson, ever since he lost his attempt to have the Hume Highway relocated outside Albury. He was an active member of the Save our City organisation and ran on their ticket at the Council elections.

Not only did he lose on the highway, he was not elected to Council by the people of this city. Since that time Mr Richardson and a number of other anti-highway members of the public have scrutinised closely every action, word and document promulgated by Council staff and select Councillors, trying to find evidence of corruption in some form or other.

They have found nothing as there is no corruption, and they have achieved nothing, except, by their actions, they are costing the ratepayers of this city thousands and thousands of dollars in staff time, consultants, state government time, paperwork and phone calls. This money could be far better spent on services for the community. Then Mr Richardson has the audacity to call Albury City an extravagant spending Council.

Mr Richardson appears to have set himself up as the moral and fiscal watchdog of our city, through a self made appointment. He and a number of other people in this community obviously consider themselves the tenth Councillor. Mr Richardson's constant barrage of emails complaining about every decision we make and targeting staff with wild accusations, became very tiresome.

I advised Mr Richardson that I thought he was a sanctimonious prat, albeit a well meaning one, and asked him to take me off his email stream. Mr Richardson is what most councillors call a serial pest.

Mr Richardson, in a fit of pretentious outrage, immediately filed a code of conduct complaint against me for those words, insisting I be punished. The Code of Conduct Committee is an independent Committee, most members from Sydney, all with very high credentials in the local government area.

The committee found there was no breach of conduct on my behalf, stating words to the effect that even though I was an elected member, I was still entitled to voice my opinion, and while the words I used my not be those of many, it was considered part of robust political debate. In other words, freedom of speech and democracy are the grass roots of this country, whether we like what is said or not.

Not content with the independent umpires' decision, Mr Richardson made further accusations that a member of the committee, Mr Gerry Homes had a conflict of interest because he knew me. We all know Mr Holmes as he is a consultant for Local Government, who specialises in meeting procedure and code of conduct training courses. I have only met him a few times, always at conferences or seminars, as would every other Councillor around this table.

Whatever he could try to overturn the finding, he did, spending ratepayers money in the process. It was only when the only way he could take it further was through legal channels, which meant he would have to spend his own money that he stopped. Thousands of dollars over two words, sanctimonious prat. His actions since appear to endorse that comment.

Due to losing yet again, Mr Richardson tended to target me personally which I don't mind normally as I find him rather irrelevant. Over the years I have been on Council I have received many, many vindictive and threatening emails, letters and phone calls. All of them anonymous. I consigned them to the rubbish bin where they belonged.

The content was far worse than anything I wrote to Mr Richardson.

There are two interesting issues that arise from this situation. They are the reason I sent the letter, and Mr. Richardson's response.

Normally I take in my stride anything that is said to or about me. I don't suffer fools gladly, am forthright and honest and intensely dislike bullies, cowards and hypocrites. I speak my mind without fear of favour and I am intensely parochial about my city and loyal to my staff. Whenever I see anyone being belittled or bullied I will be the first one to stand up.

Mr Richardson's submission wanted this Council to charge naming rights to name our stadium the Lauren Jackson Stadium. He criticised the Council for spending ratepayers money to do so, which I found very hypocritical considering how much his failed Code of Conduct complaint had cost the ratepayers.

It is the tall poppy syndrome at its very worst. Here we have an international champion, known all over the world, was born and bred in our city, who still loves and promotes Albury and intends retiring here to raise her family. What more could a city ask for by way of promotion? And Mr Richardson wants sponsorship money to name the stadium after her.

We, the people of the city of Albury are her sponsors, which is as it should be and means the stadium will be named after her in perpetuity, with no fear of it being changed due to sponsorship deals. Albury City proudly sponsors Lauren Jackson for no charge or expectation. She has given us plenty.

In all honesty, that was the last straw for me. I have more than a bit of the larrikin in me, I am not Mayor so do not have to treat the Mr Richardson's of this life with any sort of respect if they don't deserve it. I am a "backbencher" and if the words I used in my letter to Mr Richardson offend people, I would advise you not to read them even if he is shoving the letter under your nose. After all, they weren't meant for anyone else other than him. He should have kept it that way.

In his response to my letter, Mr Richardson acknowledged he was aware it was me without naming me and referred to me as a tosser, said I was sloshed and in a state of paranoia. He also said the letter was a desperate cry of help from someone who would self mutilate. He finished it up by saying the comments I made about him were better attributed to me. Quid pro quo I would have thought. Not for Mr Richardson, he then ran to the media showing them my letter but not his response. He is threatening and demanding action when his actions were just as bad if not even more offensive. My response? I just laughed and deleted his email.

I respect the Mayor for writing to all Councillors advising us of our obligations. That is right and proper and I would have had to do the same thing in her circumstances whether I wanted to or not.

However, I have nothing to apologise for, nor will I. I stand by everything I said about Mr Richardson and I believe his actions since he received the letter reinforce what I said about him. He can dish it up but he can't take it.

I also wish to put these serial pests on notice that, if they keep harassing and criticising our staff or myself with petty, baseless allegations, there could well be a few more letters coming their way. That is what democracy and freedom of speech is all about.

Thank you to the Mayor and my fellow Councillors for giving me the opportunity to put my side of the issue.

For a politician who has one time or another sought political power under the auspices of both Liberal and Labor, and failed she might have been too ideologically disorientated to have another go. Not so Cr Duncan-Strelec. That's why she stood as an Independent. Never let a bit of ideology get in the way of blind ambition.

Cr Duncan-Strelec says on the front page of the Albury Wodonga News Weekly that she doesn't really care if it escalates the conflict (her dispute with Graeme Richardson) it's got to be seen to its logical conclusion. I've got the guts and integrity to stand up to bullies and mobs she says almost overwhelmed with triumphalism declaring in the same breath with a more modest hint of euphoric introspection. If you want be a leader you have to be strong.

So there we have it. Cr Duncan-Strelec Albury's Eva Peron, a populist guided by an undiminished integrity a leader who regardless of the cost will forever uphold all that is decent in Australian society. She also takes time to damn minority interest groups and (sic) those that take advantage of our democratic processes to intimidate ordinary, honest, hardworking Australians into accepting or tolerating their views, whether we agree with them or not. Cr Duncan-Strelec also takes the opportunity take a stick to political correctness. She has also launched an email address amandafightsback@gmail.com where like minded supporters can give give succour to her defence of freedom of speech and democracy (which) is the base on which our proud country is based.

The trouble is Cr Duncan'Strelec doesn't care a rat's about democracy. She simply isn't the democratic type. To Cr Duncan-Strelec democracy is an inconvenience especially at a local government level. That's why democracy can't be left to the hoi-pollie. It's not on. While free speech, integrity and the like are given a bit of lip service it is only when free speech and integrity comply with her view of the world could it be seen as free speech and integrity. If it doesn't you become part of the mob - irrational types that conspire at every turn. Her recent letter in the Albury Wodonga News Weekly was another example of how the Cr Duncan-Strelec's petulant world of delusion and self justification are the same side of the coin and how connectivity that keeps it in place.

Cr Duncan-Strelec paid for the ad no doubt, but was it her money. Why did she choose the Albury Wodonga News Weekly.
That's where connectivity comes in. Look how Cr Duncan-Strelec championed the new Lavington library. This white elephant that will cost millions to Albury/Lavington ratepayers. How much it will eventually cost is anyones guess. The whole cost benefit analysis of the project undertaken by Albury City Council was a sham. Cr Duncan-Strelec let it be known that those who opposed the project were driven by political motives and irrational reasons.

Where's the connectivity you well may ask.

Is it one of her close friends who are fast coming to her view that sic that political correctness is taking over our country. Did these friends pass the hat around to pay for the ad, and why only in the Albury Wodonga News Weekly. Any connectivity there? Of course there is. In the holding company of Albury Wodonga News Weekly publisher Albury Wodonga Community Media Pty Ltd, the Zauner Family Holdings Pty Ltd holds 50,000 A class ordinary shares, 15,000 H class ordinary shares, and 152,952 Ordinary shares in the newspaper. We're not sure if this substantial parcel of share entitles Zauner Family Holdings Pty Ltd to voting rights and Borderline is not suggesting impropriety on either Zauner Family Holdings Pty Ltd or Cr Duncan-Strelec part. It's all about connectivity, and how it is used to achieve outcomes in Albury that may not be in the city's best interest.

Borderline recently interviewed the general manager of Countrylink research, Dr Claude Barton about the incident a few days ago when the leading engine carriage of the XPT 'came away' from other carriages on the train near a level crossing between Broadmeadows and Somerton. This is a transcript of that conversation.

Borderline: 'What actually happened Claude?'

'A hundred years ago when trains usually ran on time people caught a train to get to a destination. For example when a person embarked on a rail journey they had a destination in mind - it was not a ephemeral destination confined to some esoteric concept like an imaginary destination because the person was in possession of a ticket that said Albury to Sydney - whatever. This ticket was issued by the booking office and was real because the conductor when he checked your ticket punched a hole in it to verify that you had brought a ticket from Albury Railway station. In those days train travel even though it was reliable was sometimes uncomfortable. Then again this was compensated by reliability. Steam engines never had any air conditioning except to open a window when it got a bit hot. In winter they would put canisters of heated sand it give a bit of warmth. A criticism of most modern trains is you cannot open the window and if the air-conditioning breaks down you almost die of asphyxiation or hypothermia depending on the prevailing season. This is not so.'

Borderline: 'Why not Claude?'

Claude: 'I'm not an expert on the catering side of things but any XPT service provides a large selection of hot and cold beverages hot pies... that's when the trouble started...'

Borderline: 'What you mean that's when they banned full strength beer?'

Claude: 'As the trains became more and more unreliable it was thought that promoting the journey rather than the destination could be the answer - Of course this was somewhat problematic in the big cities when the destination was to get to the office at a time stipulated by the employer. Country folk however were thought more agreeable to the notion of the journey being more important than the destination because most people visited the big city in a fatalistic frame of mind like to visit a specialist. Say if you had to visit the city and you had a terminal disease and the specialist said you'd most probably be deceased by year's end? You'd want the journey to last forever wouldn't you. What if you were on a holiday? Are-we -nearly-there inquiries are more of the car culture than the train. What if the train operated in the evening when it was dark what a better time than to consider your journey through life. Train travel is great to solve the question your journey through life don't you think?

Borderline: 'Not always.'

Claude: The trouble is when the train is delayed for one reason great metaphysical concepts dissipate and you soon departing from singular introspection to public manifestations of the mob rules, accosting the conductor with cynical overtones and wishing all manner of disease and pestilence and other misfortunes on those responsible for the lack of inertia of the train. Even when it is explained that the train will be delayed for a perfectly good reason they are subject to threats and intimation of one sort or another. I remember distinctly a few years back when I was explaining the situation when the train was on it's way to broken Broken Hill.... a woman stood up and said the sign on the platform said the train was going to
Coffs Harbour and called me a turd. I looked it up when we eventually got to Melbourne. Disgusting.'

Borderline: 'I would have thought they would have called you worse.'

Claude: 'That's when about six months ago NSW Railcorp and their subsidiary Countrylink decided enough was enough. No longer could you promote the destination because of unreliability, also we realised you couldn't promote the journey for the same reason. That's when I suggested another course of action. As you know I have doctorate not only in economics but also in philosophy. Are you aware Friedrich Nietzsche said Mathematics would certainly have not come into existence if one had known from the beginning that there was in nature no exactly straight line, no actual circle, and no absolute magnitude? In other words you start from the pretext that there is a train but there aren't any tracks. Even if they they would be laid out in a randomly abstract way an anomalous juxtaposition of incongruous journeys and states of mind. That's when I came to the conclusion that there was no journey or destination it was all a state of mind. Remove a sense of journey and destination and you have perpetual reliability. How could you have perpetual reliability while one was slavishly obliged to the sense of journey or destination?'

Borderline: 'Then why would you travelling in the first place - who in there right mind would get on a train without contemplating the journey or the destination you'd be in some sort of metaphysical limbo? And when you arrive how would you know you were there? What if you wanted to visit your brother and you ended up in Newcastle because your brother wouldn't be there he'd be in Melbourne?'

Claude: 'That's simple the conductor would tell you actually it would be a recording because of the reliability factor. The official explanation was that the train had come apart was that it had came apart in a metaphysical sense. This however is an objective reality of the train on the tracks like now you see it now you don't. Because factoring in the reliability factor the train wasn't there because it had already arrived, what you were seeing was collapse of the wave function haven't you an appreciation of the atomic world… Schrödinger's equations?'

Borderline: 'Then where're the carriages David?'

Claude: 'The carriages are there and they aren't there. How can this be so? Is this a paradox? A situation that defies logic Lewis Mumford once called the objective world is a sort of Rorschach ink blot, into which each culture, each system of science and religion, each type of personality, reads a meaning only remotely derived from the shape and color of the blot itself. Only remotely…? Is this remoteness that is the quantum-mechanical states in random scattering the glue that binds civilization? Could be. I have my own theories and submitted them to the Royal Society. Is the cosmos reliable. What about atomic clocks which maintain an accuracy of 10−9 seconds per day (approximately 1 part in 1014) Could an XPT service have a similar reliability. The answer is yes. Ten months later I got the manuscript back unopened with not known at this address all over it an act of wanton bastardry I'm if ever I've seen one!'

Borderline'But where are the passenger's?'

Claude: 'I'm glad you asked that did you know particles can be in more than one place at once in fact a recent experiment found that one particle could be in up to 3,000 places! Did you know every human being every human being has the ability to observe and change subatomic reality that's because you cannot measure something in space and time unless you were observing it. What you are actually seeing is a parallel universe where reliability is not considered is important. A parallel universe in this instance is a mainly carbon copy with a slight difference. Our universe the actual reality we are sharing at this instance would show a full train arriving on time. That photograph was a classic time warp. They would probably have arrived hours before this photograph was taken or else it was doctored. All I can say they all arrived because my mother was on the train. '

Borderline: 'On a bus?'

David: 'As I've told you this program was started several months years ago so you have to expect some setbacks. I think the problem here is the algorithms used to perform the event simulation in were parallel computing systems were in the wrong universe. Hang on time travel - I think I've discovered time travel! The bloody Nobel Prize for Physics is mine you bastards you wait and see. I betcha they'll be falling all over themselves to invite me to their parties. Guess what know what I won't go. Just think of it you could get a train at Albury to go to Sydney and arrive there last night or the day before. You just wait until I tell them at the introduction agency!'

When the 19th-century British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli no doubt aware of the unreliable authority of numerical data coined the expression; there are three types of lies; lies, damned lies and statistics, lies, both damned and not so damned had been around for some time. Statistics on the other hand was a relative newcomer to the field of nebulous type explanations, having come into being a century before Mr Disraeli's life and times. In this rather short space in time the assembly, interpretation and increasing importance of statistics have become an increasingly artful game in itself. They are used to justify just about anything. The control of statistics is essential to shelter any taken position against accusations of deception or some other folly. Statistical has tentacles into just about every aspect of our lives. All governments love statistics. Local government is no exception.

Tourism uses a lot of statistics.

Previously DAW (Destination Albury Wodonga) and its previous incarnations used a lot of statistics to justify its existence and the millions of ratepayers dollars pumped into it over the years. (See February 2009 issue). This gargantuan black hole would have gone on for years but even statistics have their limits when placed in the hands of the uncreative. Now it seems Albury and Wodonga have gone their separate ways. Separate visitor's centres, separate publications both claiming to the official visitors guide to Albury Wodonga. Albury spent tens of thousands delivering a copy to every household. Albury City council spent thousands more promoting their publication. Curiously they used a statistic to kick the whole thing off; OUR MOST POPULAR TOURIST ATTRACTION YOU. OF THE 400,000+ VISITORS THAT CAME TO ALBURY WODONGA LAST YEAR 40% CAME TO SEE FRIEND'S AND FAMILY. Why this particular statistical interpretation stuck in Borderline's craw was an article featuring Albury City Council's Director of Tourism and Development in the Border Mail dated May 11, 2011. It paints a very different picture of tourism in Albury Wodonga that was to follow a few months later.

Was Ms Squire's thinking outside the square or some other quadrilateral type shape when she made these and other statistics available to the press?

That's where it all gets interesting like for example how do you arrive at a figure of 40%. The only accurate figures Borderline could find was supplied by the Commonwealth of Australia Department of Recourses, Tourism and Energy. Tourism Profiles for Local Government Areas in Regional Australia for 2007, which was a three to four year average to June 2007. On average there were 16,000 international visitors to Albury. 460,000 domestic overnight stay visitors and 441,000 domestic day visits. For Wodonga the figures were unreliable. Again were are talking of a three to four year average to June 2007; International visitors NP (not published because of reliability concerns) Domestic Overnight 133,000 and Domestic day NB (not published due to reliability concerns).
The average yearly number of visitors to Albury to June 2007 was 917,000. In May 2011 The Border Mail reported that a survey during 2010 Albury had 1,289,000 visitors a jump of 37% on the previous year Ms Squires who was made a director of Albury City Council in 2009 told the Border Mail the figures were in line with expectations. Whether these expectations were recorded is not known. Ms Squire also announced a 48% increase in those visiting friends and relatives and an 88% increase in visitor nights for holiday and leisure purposes. Obviously these figures were in line with expectations. Albury had 3,500 visitors a night on average.

It doesn't add up. Are all these figures rubbery at best or deceptive at worst?

Then on Saturday July 9 an advertisement in the Border Mail and News Weekly said; Of the 400,000+ visitors to Albury Wodonga last year, 40% came to see friends and family. How did they know 40% had come to visit family and friends? A body count perhaps a door-to-door survey? Blood tests.

The only seemingly reliable empirical evidence of any surveying being done of such visits was The Albury Wodonga Visitor Profile and satisfaction report. The profile was based on a sample of 215 people who had visited Albury Wodonga during June, July and August 2008.The top two reasons for visiting Albury Wodonga were: It was a convenient stopover point, 35% and to visit family25%.

In the Albury Tourism Monitor 2010 published by Albury City Council it says 314,000 visitor nights by purpose were to visit friends and relatives and that domestic overnight that their average stay when visiting friends and relatives was 2.3 nights. Domestic visitors visiting friends and relations were 104,000 while international visitors visiting friends and relatives was 2,339. Couldn't they have made it an even 2340? CITY OF ALBURY DETAILED PROFILE OF DOMESTIC OVERNIGHT TRAVEL TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA; Three year average to June 2007; 169,000 visited Albury to visit friends and relatives. The state average was 37, the national average 37% and the national average was 35%.

So where did Albury get 40%. Could these statistics suggest that on a per capita more people want to visit their friends and relatives in Albury Wodonga more than any other place in Australia or even the world. We don't know whether there's a international average for people visiting a place to visit friends and relatives. There probably is.

Do you feel your mind drifting into insensibility?

Now work this one out.

Ms Squire's department announced in May, 2011 a 37% increase in visitors in 2010. Albury was attracting 3,500 visitors a night. Presumably 40% of them were visiting friends and relatives and the others were being accommodated in motels and the like. Now Albury Wodonga has about 1,300 beds available for accommodation. Albury statistics don't include Wodonga! Then you take the 40% of those visiting family and friends from the 3,500 (visitors to Wodonga are not counted) because that 40% might be stopping with friends and relatives and the residue 3,500 minus 1,400 and you have 2,100 people in paid accommodation per night. In NSW the average occupancy rate of hotels motels and serviced apartments according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics is about 61%. That would mean if you believed the May announcement that at the least 2,100 people in paid accomodation. Usually there is two to a bed even a few instances of Ménage à trios wouldn't make too great a difference. In other words the occupancy rate of Albury motels hotels and serviced apartments was close to 90+% occupancy 52 weeks of the year! That's not what motelliers are saying.

What about Wodonga.

If Albury at 3,500 visitors a day in 2010 let's say Wodonga had 2,000 visitors a day that would be 5,500 all up. Less 40% visiting friends and relatives would mean 3,800 requiring paid accommodation. This would mean the average occupancy of paid accommodation was close to three a bed. Talk about a hotbed of debauchery. Do these statistics suggest Albury Wodonga is the nearest thing to Sodom and Gomorrah this side of the Jordan River?

Of course it does. Are there any statistical insight into visitors visiting Albury Wodonga with lurid and shameless intentions. Sadly this may well be the case. It would perfectly understandable if they were withheld. After all we all don't want to be tarred with the same brush.

Ms Squire said in the May announcement; ' The positive result is a reflection of the significant efforts of council staff, tourism and venue operators, sporting and recreation groups, businesses and the community as a whole. Mmmmm…..

Ms Squire admitted the samples taken by Tourist Research Australia were not an exact science neither is conjuring. Then again statistics lend themselves perfectly to sleight-of-hand type performances. Dai Vernon the famous magician said the guiding principle of sleight-of-hand was a well-performed sleight that looks like an ordinary, natural and completely innocent gesture. Exactly.

Ms Squire admitted the figures were sullied by 'a dark spot'. Business related stays were down 24%. Isn't that Ms Squire's and her staff's job tourism and development. Events and conferences that type of thing. Real dollars. Ms Squire has said as much wasn't that her departments mission statement. That's the good thing about statistics you can use them to avert any scrutiny of other statistics and in this instance hide any confusion as to the market Albury City Council are pitching for. Make it up as you go along. If one journey up one garden path has to be statistically rerouted then make sure the last expedition has achieved predicted statistical outcomes. With these figures at hand you sublimate failure into into a more favourable disposition when you want to put your hand into the ratepayers pocket at a later date.

Ms Squire concluded in May that; the results are an endorsement of the investment the council is making in tourism and shows it is re-establishing Albury's position in the national marketplace. Does that mean those visiting family and friends in Albury Wodonga are aware they are leading the charge in re-establishing Albury (and presumably Wodonga's) position in the national marketplace? They must be. Of course they are.

Then there's the visitors centre at near the Albury railway station. There hasn't been much said about that. All those hundreds of thousands refurbishing it and they still don't own it. Now they're refocusing the centre to attract the grey nomads. That's another million earmarked to improve access. Longer wider parking places where visiting caravans can off-load their sewage and take on freshwater. A curious thing about the Albury visitors centre is there are no volunteers they are all paid staff. When there was the one visitor's centre in on the Lincoln Causeway it depended on quite a few volunteers. This kept operating costs down and the people liked doing it. The Wodonga visitors centre is now fully funded by Wodonga Council. Another couple of hundred thousand. Two visitors centre within a couple of kilometres of each other.

Of the publications themselves both are shamelessly advertorial. Surely one would think the publication mainly funded by ratepayer's money would make some attempt at inclusion. Who made the decision on what shops, pubs and whatever got a Guernsey. Half of the 68 page of the Albury brochure are ads for motels and the like. The only guarantee of inclusion by paying for an ad. Then there's the matter of the 40% of people visiting Albury to visit friends and family why wasn't anything in Lavington or North Albury mentioned. Isn't Lavington the statistical centre of Albury? The Wodonga contribution is pitiable especially as they've hired an outfit from Melbourne to guide them. Money for Jam. A full list of its shortcomings can be found here.

It seems Albury Wodonga haven't learn't a thing from the debacle that was DAW and its predecessors. They've just readjusted/rerouted the statistics.

...Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Mark Twain, autobiography, 1904

It was a night of high theatre performed in the provincial style all playing their bit feigned indignation earnest huddles . The Border Mail gave it to Amanda 'on points'. Most of those in the gallery including Borderline knew the evening would develop into farce and Cr Duncan-Strelec didn't disappoint. She even brought a few props with her, notably her mobile phone, which she told the Border Mail was to call her solicitor. The reporter concluded that this resulted in 'an imbalance' which left Albury Council 'scrambling for ground to stand on'. Obviously the reporter hadn't seen the numerous impromptu performances by Cr Duncan-Strelec over the years.

When she refused to leave the chamber because what they were doing was 'legally unsound', she was using just another of those grand gestures in her arsenal of theatrical techniques to run rings around her adversaries. The other Council members probably had reasonable grounds to believe what they were doing was legally sound, but none it seems had the confidence to press it. So they attempted to appease her, warn her the mayor, Cr Glachan, was even going to call the police and have her removed. Cool heads prevailed and the GM Les Tomich suggested a less confrontational option. Then she was expelled from the chamber. After all, Les knows Cr Duncan-Strelec's tactics to a tee. If the police had been called, that would have her final grand gesture. As she was escorted from the council chamber her victory would have been complete. Martyrdom. 'O liberty, what crimes are committed in your name!' might have accompanied her exit, together with glances to the ceiling and beyond. No doubt the Councillor was inspired by the Joan of Arc she learnt about at St Josephs all those years ago. Maybe even Joan had a few chardonnays to steady her nerves.

All Cr Duncan-Strelec had to do was apologise to Graeme Richardson and Darren Cameron for a Code of Conduct violation that had been upheld by Gerry Holmes, Albury City Council's investigator and adjudicator on such matters. His official title is 'Sole Reviewer'. He was appointed by council on the advice of the General Manager, Les Tomich.

The way she was hunched over the microphone gave every indication she wasn't there to apologise. She wanted another go at justifying her behaviour, but the mayor, Councillor Glachan would have none of it. She was asked to apologise and she said no - eight times she said no. Then they decided to throw her out of the chamber. What an opportunity. She refused to do so until she thought the moment was right. She didn't go quietly either, taking the time to give a few people in the gallery a few home truths, before another impromptu performance in front of a few cameras and a few grave notions on the illegality of it all and the waste of ratepayers' money. Perhaps in hindsight they should have done what officials did at the Seoul Olympics when South Korean Boxer Byun Jong-il, as a protest against his unexpected defeat, parked himself on the canvas and refused to leave the ring. The officials just turned the lights off and went home. Well, most went home. About an hour later he got up and walked into the night. Someone must have stayed behind to lock up. One thing that puts a ceiling on a grand gesture is the lack of an audience - or sense of shame.

It must have been in the back of councillors' minds that Cr Duncan-Strelec wouldn't go quietly. But was all this a bit of a 'show' to deflect attention from general manager, Les Tomich, or the mayor, Councillor Glachan, and their part in the matter? Were they just bit players in the scheme of things? Weren't they also subject to a complaint of a breach of Albury City Council's Code of Conduct? What Mr Graeme Richardson, the complainant, alleged in a nutshell was that both the general manager and mayor had   failed to adequately respond to his complaint and, in the Mayor's case, actually gave 'support' to Cr Duncan-Strelec in that she allowed her on Monday June 27 to explain the reasons for her actions to council. (For further information on Cr Duncan-Strelec's Code of Conduct violation see the recent Borderline article.) Prior to this, Cr Duncan-Strelec told David Johnson from the Border Mail (June 17) that she was the author of the letter to Mr Richardson. On Monday June 20 Mr Richardson emailed Council saying he was waiting for the Council to take action.

It was only on Wednesday June 29 when Mr Richardson lodged a written Code of Conduct complaint that the council was compelled to take action.

The document which had caused offence was a submission Mr Richardson had made to council. Cr Duncan-Strelec made a copy of the document, covered it with mainly offensive annotations and sent it anonymously from a post office in Lavington to Mr Richardson. In his report to Council Gerry Holmes, the 'Sole Reviewer' of the case, uses legalistic jargon to explain the responsibilities of the Mayor and General Manager and to say they are not responsible for initiating Code of Conduct complaints. Does this mean that even if they understand some behaviour to be in breach of Albury City Council's Code of Conduct they cannot act without a written complaint?   The question that can be asked is whether a submission by a member of the community can be used in a derogatory way against the person who made the submission. Surely it is a serious breach of trust not to mention ethically, professionally and lawfully a contempt of due process.

Mr Holmes said it was not up to either the Mayor or the General Manager to instigate proceedings against the council. Mr Holmes concluded on Cr Glachan's obligations to council: 'It would be a potential breach of the Code of Conduct for a Councillor to seek to undertake an investigation into an operational matter. Therefore no reasonable person would anticipate the Mayor would have the responsibility for undertaking an inquiry into the incident.' To put it simply, it wasn't in the Mayor's job description.

Then he considered the actions of the General Manager.

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Les Tomich <ltomich@alburycity.nsw.gov.au mailto:ltomich@alburycity.nsw.gov.au> wrote:
Good afternoon Councillors

On Monday 30 May 2011 Council considered its 2011/12 budget and as part of its consideration received and noted a late submission by a ratepayer, Mr Graeme Richardson. After due consideration, Council resolved to adopt the 2011/12 budget without alteration.

On Wednesday 1 June 2011 anonymous correspondence was received by Mr Richardson. I have attached a copy for your information. The correspondence comprises a photocopy of the original correspondence sent by Mr Richardson with several handwritten notations thereon. The correspondence is unsigned.

Mr Richardson has advised the writer that he finds the correspondence "offensive" and requests Council to identify the writer. He has further indicated that his potential courses of action may include reporting of the matter to ICAC and/or the Police.

Accordingly, I would respectfully request that you advise me whether or not you were the person responsible so that I may advise the complainant in an attempt to limit the damage to Council's reputation that would no doubt occur should the matter proceed by way of a public and/or independent investigation.

I would request your response by 4.00pm Wednesday 8 June 2011.

Cheers

Mt Tomich was found by Mr Holmes to have no coercive powers: advocating that the General Manager ought to have engaged handwriting experts is to misunderstand how the law operates. In the absence of full forensic capabilities and powers of compulsion the General Manager could only rely upon time and moral persuasion for the responsible person to admit responsibility. Beyond appealing to the person to come forward the reality is that the General Manager, despite any suspicions he might have had, had very little practical tools available to pursue a forensic investigation. Mr Holmes found that the General Manager's actions were a nuanced response which he considered appropriate and more likely to produce results.

That the General Manager signed off with 'cheers' suggests the matter was not being taken very seriously at all. Let me know when someone legally asks you to supply information and signs off 'cheers'.

Then again if the General Manager was serious about finding the author of the document there would have been no shortage of Cr Duncan-Strelec's handwriting circulating in council. She didn't make any attempt to disguise it. What followed was that the councillors one by one were compelled to email or notify the General Manager that they were not the author of the document. Mr Holmes also found that the act of permitting Cr Duncan-Strelec to address the Council meeting on June 17 was not 'within' the powers of the General Manager and found that 'control' of Council meetings was the responsibility of the Chair the Mayor, Cr Glachan.

As to the accusation that sending offensive material through the post was in breach of Commonwealth laws regulating the use of postal services, Mr Holmes found that the General Manager as a third party would not have the standing to make an official complaint upon which action could be taken.

Intending terrorists take note.

No wonder Cr Duncan-Strelec knew she could play her fellow councillors for a song. No doubt the General Manager and especially the Mayor, Cr Glachan, who is up for re-election. With Cr Van deVen breathing down her neck come the September mayoral elections she particularly wanted to be seen as decisive and in control. Perhaps she even wrote the editorial in the Border Morning the following morning, which was at odds with the mayhem the paper's reporter had described. Instead the Border Mail explained it thus: the council led by Cr Glachan responded to last night's almost farcical behaviour in a calm manner, guided by staff and legal advisers and within the bounds of legislative requirements.

That's not what Borderline saw. In a calm manner! Why did Cr Henk van de Ven come down to the gallery and consult with Cr Duncan-Strelec's confidant, the former Albury City Council engineer, Brian McLennan, in the hope he might intercede? As for the Border Mail's assertion that that Council was guided by staff and legal advisers the only bloke there was the General Manager and he wasn't saying much. Why would he? Mr Tomich prefers his thoughts to be made behind closed doors.

A day later Cr Henk van de Ven, forever the opportunist, announced he would be standing for Albury mayor. He said he advised Cr Glachan to suspend the meeting indefinitely, which he claimed would have defused the situation. Cool Hand Hank.

And what does Cr Duncan-Strelec do. She says she was going to quit council in October, but isn't now another porker of the variety she used when she lost the mayoral robes in 2007. 'I want to spend more time with my daughter,' she said.

Now she wants to take her case to the Supreme Court. I wonder if she'll be sending the hat around.

When the David Street residents between Smollett and Young streets were told that as part of a makeover of David Street 12 trees had to be removed because they were deemed to be high risk and nearing the end of their life the residents were understandably shocked. Such an asset could not be readily replaced not in their lifetimes at least. Reluctantly at first the residents accepted the professional judgement of Albury City Council because Albury's arborist had inspected the trees and determined that 12 of the trees were nearing the end of their life expectancy and are in poor health. Little did the residents know at the they weren't being told the real truth of the matter. The trouble was that Albury Council's deception had not been properly thought out. Perhaps they were overconfident that their subterfuge would go unscrutinized. Who Knows. Now the machinations of those responsible for the removal of the trees can be revealed, and how the outcome was determined by Engineering Services, Albury City Council. All dressed up in typical Albury City Council doublespeak and lies to expedite the outcome while using Albury's arborist as a scapegoat to justify the removal of the trees.

From the start it was nothing more than a sequence of inventions which allowed both Brad Ferris, director Engineering Services, Albury City Council and James Jenkins, director, Community and Recreation to achieve an outcome that was not only grossly flawed but a complete abuse of due process. It was an exercise that brings into question the very integrity Albury City Council expouses. After all Albury is very big on integrity it says so on their website under Visions and Values Our Values. Integrity through trust, honesty, openness and consistency... Pigs Fly - right!

With the removal of the 12 trees there were only 4 mature trees remaining. Borderline got thinking and had soon made a number of observations. These trees look like any other along David Street could this scenario be repeated in other streets. Was this an indication of the general condition of one of the city's greatest assets our trees? This would be a disaster for Albury. It didn't make any sense. The truth of the matter wasn't long coming. A hundred or so years for most trees is barely a passage into juvenility not senility. And the life of these particular trees, the English Elm and the English Plane tree were no exception. Maturation can last for many centuries. Their retirement is a long one as well. Even in old age they can enjoy their dotage, and barring disease and poor guardianship can live on for hundreds of years.

Then again there is the consideration that Australia, the land of the ubiquitous eucalyptus is not so welcome to the sensitivities of such exotic species. Perhaps.

One might have left it at that when Borderline came across News from Albury City (a similar document that was received by residents between Smollett and Young streets). Albury City Group Leader, Engineering services, Andrew Lawson (see Right); ...the remaining street trees will provide a canopy and shade while the young trees mature. One would have thought that the advice given to Mr Lawson should have been that the replacement Plane trees neither require a canopy or shade from the large existing trees to mature besides how could the remaining trees provide such protection to the replanted trees the length of an entire block? Then again why was the Albury City Group Leader, Engineering Services making the announcement shouldn't it have been made by James Jenkins, Albury City Director, Community and Recreation. Albury's trees were in his portfolio. Considering the gravity of the situation shouldn't he or one of his underlings made the announcement.

Then a copy of a report by Albury City, arborist, Leah Warburton landed on the desk of Borderline. When you read the report dated November 5, 2010. Introduction; On the 26 October 2010 a site meeting was held in David Street (between Smollett and Hume Street) with Council Officers Andrew Lawson, Stephen Chalmers and Leah Warburton. On site the proposed rehabilitation of the road and the health and structure of the existing street trees was discussed. I was directed to produce this street tree report. On the 5 November 2010 I returned to carry out the inspection of 19 street trees from the ground...

In her field inspection of the trees Ms Warburton advised that only one tree be removed. Remedial work on the other remaining trees was recommended.

The final report instead of discussing the remedial aspects of the trees she suddenly changed gear; ...During the rehabilitation of the road there is an opportunity to carry out successional street tree planting... This, Borderline is lead to believe is what Engineering Services wanted in the first place. However to achieve the desired outcome they had to give their raison d'etre a veneer of legitimacy. Whether the discussions between Ms Warburton and Engineering Services Ms Warburton had been told by Engineering Services about their proposed course of action is unknown. However the discrepancies between field assessment of the trees and her report seemed to suggest she had been nobbled along the way. This begs another question. Under NSW Planning Legislation, the pruning or removal of any tree over 4.5 metres in height or 3 metres in branch spread requires Council approval. Does the City of Albury have to get approval from the relevant person or department within Council? Or can more capricious methods be used by Council, even though they contradict Council's own edicts.

The real intrigue began when the trees were being removed. The way in which the trees were arbitrarily removed are evidence that Albury City Council was engaging in very dodgy practices. The English Elm in front of the Bland residence is a case in point. The English Elm outside their house was saved from destruction. Mr Bland who has lived in David Street for over 30 years told Borderline he was mystified why the English Elm escaped the chainsaw.

'The centre of it has a large hollow, and judging by the other trees, it was in a worse condition than many of the trees removed yet it could stay others that had nothing wrong with them were removed,' he told Borderline.

'All they needed was a good prune and a better system to allow them to get more water. The only one I saw that was badly decayed was the one the arborist had marked for removal.'

Albury City recognises the importance of trees in our landscape, they not only improve Albury's liveability, but act as climate regulators modifying temperature, wind and reflective glare. They absorb and reduce pollution whilst producing oxygen. Trees also add to the aesthetic quality of the local urban environment... Albury City Council website.

Why in the final report is the emphasis on the opportunity to replant replant rather than the remedial work suggested for the trees? Then it mentioned that the useful life expectancy of the trees was between 5 and 15 years. This is a very contentious issue because as you can see (left) some of the trees removed were healthy. You could almost say some of them were in the prime of their lives.

The arborist also recommended; The community and residents of street to be consulted regarding the proposed construction, alternative concepts and likely impacts this will have on the streets cape. This was not done. The only consulting that was done when Mr Bland approached the arborist to ask her what she was doing! Did this have anything to do with the arbitrary preservation of the tree in the front of his house. Was the decision not to remove the tree made to appease a prospective troublemaker?

God has cared for these trees, saved them from drought, disease, avalanches, and a thousand tempests and floods. But he cannot save them from fools. ~John Muir