I refer to 'Brighton Memorial Fields are for all' from the Bayside Council.
Really? How much of the ratepayers' money has the council wasted on producing this bit of disingenuous pap for residents? Did you send it to the whole municipality, or only to the immediate local community that you have so disregarded and disadvantaged? You must think that the local community hereabouts is as stupid as you are arrogant and unprofessional.
"... these fields will be for all the community."
Do you mean the small remaining area of lawn that's not being licensed to someone's favourite soccer club? You joke, of course.
The actions involved in the various determinations of this redevelopment have been ineffably arrogant, devious and unprofessional, and the local community will not forget any of this at the next council election; indeed, the council's actions in this matter are so underhanded, if this is the way you usually handle matters, this council deserves to have an administrator appointed in its place.
But let's just go over the material facts of the matter:
The TfNSW financing of this field's upgrading required that the redevelopment is on a "like for like" basis. Yet, the council omitted the existing tennis courts from the redevelopment. There is no good reason for doing so and there is sufficient room to retain/reinstate the same-and that being the local community's overwhelming wish.
The most arrogant and underhanded aspect of it all is that the council had made determinations on the various aspects of this redevelopment even before the M6 Group or council had conducted the required consultations with the local community.
Indeed, unknown to the local community, the council has-twice-disingenuously conducted community consultations after the council had already determined the matters, well knowing it had no intention of being influenced by any such local community sentiment.
We accept that the council is empowered to make such decisions on our behalf. But had it consulted the local community beforehand-instead of after the fact-Council would have known that the local community and school made good use of the long-existing tennis courts.
Had the council bothered to ascertain that fact beforehand, I would like to think that it would have demonstrated some consideration for the local community's sentiments and retained/reinstated the tennis courts in a "like for like" redevelopment. But, no, in each case, before any community consultation had even been conducted, the council made determinations-principally for the benefit of the Ilinden soccer club-with zero consideration-indeed, with negative consequences for the immediate surrounding community.
Bayside Council's actions in this whole matter have been ineffably disingenuous, and we have expressed as much to the appropriate Ministers.
Urological surgeons' response
We refer to your article "Dr Paul Cozzi reprimanded by the Health Care Complaints Commission over unsatisfactory professional conduct" (Leader, November 16).
We are urological surgeons comprising the Department of Urology at St George Hospital.
The Thursday morning list was Dr Cozzi's regular operating list at St George Hospital.
There was written and verbal discussion between Dr David Malouf, Dr Anthony Hutton and Dr Cozzi in the days prior to the list.
It was noted he had simultaneous operating lists in different hospitals scheduled on the Thursday morning and that this represented a breach of his duties as a surgical trainer. It was made clear to Dr Cozzi that if his supervision of the trainee was not going to be appropriate, then the only option would be to cancel the St George Hospital list.
Dr Cozzi gave a verbal undertaking that he would appropriately supervise the list, and this was the basis for the agreement to allow the list to proceed.
The events noted above are described in detail in the full decision published by the HCCC.
Dr Peter Aslan, Prof David Gillatt, Dr Anthony Hutton, Dr Dominic Lee, Dr David Malouf, Dr Peter Nash, Dr Anu Ranasinghe and Dr James Thompson
HAVE YOUR SAY
WRITE TO THE EDITOR