Thread: The results are in

Originally Posted by EeeBees

So the meeting ended in light and love...how jolly...

So the minuted incumbent manager's caution to the council reminding them that there is a statutory obligation to band birds was not agreed to at the time, yet we read $9000 ...the important Mallard Research Project. And was the $6000 for a feasibility study on a fish out pond also out of the discretionary spending wallet...hmmmm

What about buying a scapegoat? That might have cost you 50 to 100 K easy as you like. Discretionary spending?

Originally Posted by Tim Allen

What about buying a scapegoat? That might have cost you 50 to 100 K easy as you like. Discretionary spending?

jesus add in ongoing legal costs what a flippin liberty

im probably flogging a dead horse and they can say whateva they like the evidence is clear.
the most irksome and unbelievable part is not once did they consider consulting licence holders.
its never been mentioned as one of the things the former manager didnt do or iniate.
they,d made up thier minds and were going with it hell or high water and thats the real shocker in this whole sorry affair.
they seem to think thier biggest failing is the manager didnt put a fait acompli on the agenda.
it just looks like an attempt to slip something by the licence buyers but if it was or wasnt tho crappy or negligent,is not the point.
not one statement from the chairman or former councillors has expressed any regret or shown any evidence that they intended to consult but instead belabour a procedural error and ''it wasnt me line''.
no the mistake you made wasnt expecting someone else to do your dirty work for you ie email elections nz and nzc.
[which i doubt he,d have done unless asked/told]
the mistake nay failing is you totaly ignored the very people you were supposed to represent.???
your motives in doing so are for your conciences alone to ponder and your licence holders to suffer till next election at least.