Post by steve on Oct 29, 2011 22:11:13 GMT -5
I just looked up "collusion" on wikipedia and found this...
---
Collusion is an agreement between two or more persons, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage.
... It can involve "wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties". In legal terms, all acts effected by collusion are considered void.
---
I thought of the word when I read this quote from the July 22, 2011 article in the Goulburn Post
From what Peter told the Post, and from a lot of other indications, Peter Walker and Andy Divall have already been in "negotiations." But when did these negotiations start?
The "final" traffic report, "version 1g" for example, was prepared in Jan 2011 and in it they were clearly talking about "expected" traffic numbers from Council waste.
Yet I think it was only in July 2011 that Council sent out requests for bids on the city's waste handling.
Seems pretty clear there was some discussion going on way before it all became public. Also seems pretty hard for some other company to fairly compete with the Divalls for a waste contract.
Many people are of the impression that this whole thing was agreed upon long ago and getting the public to agree to it is just a formality and a huge nuissance for the Goulburn Council.
Council of course denies this. They would have to.
I want to highlight this part of the wikipedia definition....
Recall that Council hired an "independent consultant" towards the very end of this whole thing. Geoff Peterson even told me that the reason they were going to hire said consultant was to try to make it look like Council was independent. That is not an exact quote, but that is the idea. Maybe he said it more like "to assure" the public that Council was impartial etc.
In one article the Post said something like Council was "at pains" to try to make themselves appear independent.
Btw, I still don't know who that consultant was or is, and I haven't heard anyone else mention it.
Does anyone know if it was brought up in the JRPP meeting?
---
Collusion is an agreement between two or more persons, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage.
... It can involve "wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties". In legal terms, all acts effected by collusion are considered void.
---
I thought of the word when I read this quote from the July 22, 2011 article in the Goulburn Post
Divall’s yard manager and project spokesperson Peter Walker told the Post this month that the company had a long way to go with council negotiations.
From what Peter told the Post, and from a lot of other indications, Peter Walker and Andy Divall have already been in "negotiations." But when did these negotiations start?
The "final" traffic report, "version 1g" for example, was prepared in Jan 2011 and in it they were clearly talking about "expected" traffic numbers from Council waste.
Yet I think it was only in July 2011 that Council sent out requests for bids on the city's waste handling.
Seems pretty clear there was some discussion going on way before it all became public. Also seems pretty hard for some other company to fairly compete with the Divalls for a waste contract.
Many people are of the impression that this whole thing was agreed upon long ago and getting the public to agree to it is just a formality and a huge nuissance for the Goulburn Council.
Council of course denies this. They would have to.
I want to highlight this part of the wikipedia definition....
| ...misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties |
Recall that Council hired an "independent consultant" towards the very end of this whole thing. Geoff Peterson even told me that the reason they were going to hire said consultant was to try to make it look like Council was independent. That is not an exact quote, but that is the idea. Maybe he said it more like "to assure" the public that Council was impartial etc.
In one article the Post said something like Council was "at pains" to try to make themselves appear independent.
Btw, I still don't know who that consultant was or is, and I haven't heard anyone else mention it.
Does anyone know if it was brought up in the JRPP meeting?