A few days ago, MBI Facebook uploaded a story about a leaflet that was being distributed around the MBRC Division 1 area. This posting has been one of the most viewed on MBI Facebook, so MBI has decided to upload the post to its website for those readers who do not use Facebook. The story concerns some controversy that has developed around the previous employment history at MBRC of one of the MBRC Division 1 candidates. Readers are left to form their own opinions on the variances in the stories.
It is rumoured that a 10,000+ leaflet drop will occur this week in MBRC Division 1. It will be interesting to see if it addresses issues raised in this election or whether it will merely be an attack on other candidate(s) and/or an attack on those who disagree with the author(s) of the leaflet referred to below. MBI will post this new leaflet when it is delivered
A number of MBI readers have contacted MBI about a leaflet that was delivered to various mailboxes around Bribie in recent days. The leaflet can be viewed by clicking here.
The leaflet contains some details taken from correspondence between complainants and MBRC regarding MBRC Division 1 candidate Paul Whyte. They go back to the time when Paul Whyte was an employee of MBRC. The leaflet is authorised by John Edmundson of Woorim who was the Principal Petitioner on the original formal complaint.
So what is the story here? To find out, MBI contacted the Principal Petitioner and was advised as follows:
- A formal complaint and petition was submitted to Council on January 7, 2012 outlining certain issues regarding the behaviour of Paul Whyte who at that time was a supervisor with MBRC.
- MBRC considered the complaint so serious that it appointed an independent outsider, Acclaim Corporate Services, to investigate the matters raised by the complaint. MBRC also advised the CMC of the issues that had been raised. Acclaim’s Interim and Final Reports were submitted to the CMC.
- The complainants were advised by letter dated January 24, 2013 from MBRC’s Acting CEO, John Rauber, of the findings of Acclaim’s investigations. This letter can be viewed by clicking here. This letter advises… “that the employee has been reprimanded in relation to the outcome of the complaint and his performance will be monitored in the future”
- The petitioners sought to obtain a copy of Acclaim’s Report by letter on February 12, 2013 but this request was denied. In his letter of March 5, 2013, MBRC CEO Darryl Hitzman assures the complainants that… “The employee was reprimanded…” ..and.. “The employee’s performance will continue to be monitored”. This letter can be viewed by clicking here.
In response to questions about dealings with the CMC, Paul Whyte comments in his election material… “I was referred to the CMC where it was established that I had not engaged in any corrupt conduct or misconduct”.
In response to comments contained in the leaflet distributed recently, Paul Whyte further comments on his Facebook page… “The subject matter is very old news and nothing ever came out of it that either affected my job or involved me in any disciplinary action in any way.
At first glance there would appear to be some variation in the interpretation of what actually happened, and in the interpretation of the significance of what happened. If the Acclaim Report were made public, perhaps these seeming variations could be resolved. However access to the Acclaim Report and other associated documents via a Right to Information (RTI) request that was submitted by John Edmundson was denied by MBRC. He comments that MBRC Legal advised that in response to the RTI request, MBRC located over 700 relevant files and documents but would only release about 30 of them. These are mainly correspondence between MBRC and the complainants. Access to Acclaim’s report was denied.
So what is in the Acclaim Report? Why is access being denied? Who is denying access? The release of that Report would resolve the claims and counter-claims that are now being made.