He's at it again - and making just as big a mess of it this time as he did before.
He knows the decision to close the pool (and the financial incompetence that forced him to grovel to Government for a 'housekeeping' loan that maxed-out Fylde's credit card and will take a generation to pay off) will cost him the election -
so he's trying to find a way to get the pool open again in the hope we won't remember what a shower this administration has been when the election comes around in 2011.
This time he's got a new sacrificial lamb to run the negotiations. With Cllr Renwick off the scene, Councillor Susan Fazackerley has been appointed to be in charge of the disaster that is St Anne's pool.
And what a poisoned chalice she has been given.
In some ways we feel sorry for her, she has accepted Mission Impossible - probably for the very best of intentions - and we don't doubt she wants the pool to re-open. But sadly, like the previous postholder, we doubt she can fix it, and she will
damage her own stature and credibility by associating herself with the ways of the Commissar.
Back in 'Snippets June 09' we said we knew something was in the wind for the pool but it was being kept quiet. We'd had a wink from an insider. The YM had had their nose pushed out, and a new player
was at the table. We thought at the time it might be a company called 'Pulse' but it turns out it may not have been them this time
It's a local man called XXXXXXX XXXXX* who, amongst other things, runs a leisure and fitness club in Chorley. We'll come back to his proposition in a moment, but we need to reflect on the arrangements to close the pool first.
You'll remember that, (at Dim Tim's suggestion), the Commissar insisted on closure to balance the budget (ie to pour the money in to fill the black hole caused by Dim Tim's Streetscene operation and the Wyre refuse contract).
He first thought of the idea of closing the pool before November 2007, and by February he was hinting at it seriously (see in 'In Deep Water').
He blamed this on a £500,000 "loss" the pool made each year. (Actually all public swimming pools needs subsidy to operate. Like parks and flowers, you have them because they are for the greater good of the community, not to make money out of them).
But the crucial thing with swimming -especially in a seaside area like Fylde - is to make it as easy as possible for children to learn to swim so they don't avoidably die from drowning.
So yes, they do need a public subsidy (which he calls a 'loss'). But he forgets to mention the charge he had included in the accounts of £119,000 - an entirely theoretical capital charge that is simply contrad off elsewhere in the accounts.
Then there were the "Miscellaneous repairs". The 2008 repairs were estimated to cost £66,000 and had actually cost £63,000 for three quarters of the year, but for 2009 he had estimated a cost of £166,000. That's another hundred thousand pounds more
And there's more.
There were several other dubious 'real costs' shown in the accounts - not least the £65,000 worth of Central Overhead charges, most of which were not be saved by closing the pool (you can't reduce the hours of a staff accountant, or the Mayor - or
the Commissar's new £9,000 a year salary - by 0.003% or whatever), so again these are not real savings.
No. These were trumped up, or illusory costs used to justify a smash and grab raid on the remaining accounts to get whatever he could to offset his profligacy and financial incompetence.
Then the fateful 3 March (2008) Council meeting at the Rugby Club resolved to close the pool by July at the latest.
We said at the time.....
There will be inescapable costs even if the building closes as long as it remains in FBC's ownership (rates, essential maintenance, an apportionment of heating, lighting and water, security, etc). These will still exist, and expenditure shown
against them will not completely disappear, even if it reduces.
Furthermore, the cost of maintaining an empty building (which is actually likely to be higher because of vandalism), will need adding back into the mix to arrive at the 'real' cost of running the pools and what might practically be 'saved' by closing
We presumed that even he wouldn't be so stupid as to close the pool without putting the running systems onto tick over mode.
Surely he wouldn't switch everything off and drain the pool tank.
That would be madness and hugely expensive if the pool was ever to open again.
But that's just what he did.
So where are we now?
Well we haven't been inside, but we know someone who has seen at least parts of the building.
The pool tank was drained and, as a consequence, and as we predicted, the tiles are falling off the sides (they need the water pressure to keep them in place). Some will say this looks worse than it is, but from experience, we suspect it will
actually be worse to fix than it appears.
The tiles are not just the sort you can go to B&Q for. We believe they might even have been made specially for St Anne's Pool.
Hopefully, the tank won't have broken its back with the weight of water removed - as it would have done on a clay soil (sand foundations will move less readily when the huge weight of water is removed) - so at least that's a blessing.
But we understand all or almost all the heating and air 'conditioning' has been switched off.
This was a disaster.
St Anne's pool is unusual. It was designed as an ozone pool not a chlorine one. And it has a complex heating and air conditioning system to minimise the heating cost. It relies on this equipment to keep the air dry. With that switched off completely
(as opposed to running on tick over), all manner of dampness problems will have arisen.
It has already caused all the metalwork in the pool hall to go rusty (handrails up the stairs, metalwork around the pool, brackets and fixtures, even the lifeguard's 'high chair' will be rusted up, quite probably beyond repair), The carpets will be
full of mildew, the woodwork has become warped and probably unusable. Doors are sticking and warped. It's quite possible that the 'out of sight metalwork' will has gone rusty as well.
Worst of all, (but so far we've not been able to confirm this aspect), we suspect the air 'conditioning' unit will be heavily corroded. This was new or almost new in 1998 or thereabouts. It takes the saturated air from the pool hall, extracts
and recovers the heat from it, and dries and cleans the air before recirculating it.
Inside this huge metal machine - which is a bit bigger than a decent domestic lounge - the atmosphere is about as damp as a rainforest, and it is almost impossible to prevent rusting. If it has been switched off without sufficient care, it is now
likely to be useless.
A new one will probably cost £300,000 at today's prices by the time it is installed.
The report to the Politburo Cabinet says that to get the pool working again it will cost £30,000.
We say this is a gross under-estimate
We think the tiles and pool structure will probably cost £50,000 to fix. Add in the replacement (or treated) metalwork needed and it will go to £80,000 at least. We wouldn't be surprised at £100,000 by the time the carpets and replacement woodwork is
If the air handling unit needs replacing, we think it will probably cost £400,000 to get the pool open again.
That's all because there was not proper and adequate care and thought given to the closure arrangements.
In former days, this sort of gross incompetence might have led to the cost being recovered from those responsible for making such an appalling decision through a process known as 'surcharge' - those responsible for a bad decision could be made to bear
the costs. - Personally.
Sadly that option is no longer available since the Government changed the law. It is a disgrace that it cannot now be used. We believe the Commissar should be personally accountable for these losses.
But hang on a minute, didn't the Politburo cabinet report say there was someone interested in taking over the pool?
Why and how could they do that if they know the condition of the building? (as we believe they will, because we understand they have had builders in)
The answer seems to us to be that, quite correctly, Mr XXXXX* has identified the pool alone cannot generate a surplus of income over cost, and will always needs a subsidy. But he has a workaround. We understand his plan is about what we would call
This is something you might expect from someone who comes from a leisure marketing background.
The idea is that you create or add-in services and facilities that seem to add a great deal of value, but cost relatively small amounts to provide.
So what was the proposition that he made?
Well, we understand it involved demolition of the internal office and storage space to the left of the main entrance ( the rooms alongside the road between the pool and Pleasure Island). In this space he would put some cardiovascular fitness
equipment. Other minor internal changes would see a steam room and sauna added, with spectator capacity moved upstairs.
In addition to this he wants to be able to offer the use of the Council's bowling greens, tennis court and pitch and putt course all within a single annual 'Fitness Club' membership fee of around £XX* per month or £XXX* a year. We understand existing
users could carry on as at present on a pay-as-you-go or contract arrangement, but he thought the idea of a leisure pass for all facilities would make people think £XX* a month would be worthwhile buying for a re-invigorated swimming pool.
For that, he says he will let you go swimming, use the fitness equipment, sauna etc, play bowls or tennis or mini golf whenever you want.
So what sort of a subsidy does he want from the Council? (Remember that the YMCA were talking around £120,000 to £160,000 a year). We understand he wanted a one off payment of around £250,000 (probably towards the re-opening costs) and
agreement on the use of the supporting facilities. After this he would stand any ongoing subsidy cost himself. He would do all the repairs to get the pool going again and staff it and run it with no further payment from the Council.
We understand he had also said he hoped and expected to be able to make a contribution to the Council after a few years of operation.
We also understand he would have allowed the over 60s and under 16's to continue to have free swimming as per the Government's plan (This is now difficult to achieve at St Anne's because all the money from the Government grant is being paid to the
YMCA as part of the scheme to keep Kirkham open, so there is no Government cash available to support St Anne's, but Mr XXXXX* was prepared to offer this facility at his own expense).
Crucial to his plan was timing. He is a marketing man, and he knows that all fitness club memberships renew in the post-Christmas period. After the Christmas dinner comes the guilt and the manic desire to lose weight. This is when people will sign up
for fitness schemes.
So his plan hinged on having the pool and facilities open, ideally for January, but for April at the latest to be able to tap into this market and attract people from other fitness clubs in the area that are more expensive.
He believes he might need planning permission for the internal alterations, and to get that process moving, he needed approval at this Cabinet meeting.
But anyone with a seasoned eye reading the report to Cabinet would see the report is a triumphant exercise in back-pedalling.
The key issue in the gobbledygook hiding the real meaning of the report is the decision about which "model of operation" to use.
In plain English this means two things. Firstly, whether the Council themselves should specify what they are prepared to accept, or whether they should be open to the offers and suggestions from others (like this offer from Mr XXXXX*) and,
secondly, whether they are only prepared to offer the swimming pool on its own as the service to be tendered, or whether to allow some other measure of 'value added' service to be included (fitness suite and other leisure services like Bowls and
Tennis and so on).
A bystander might be tempted to say they have picked Mr XXXXXX*brains and are about to nick his idea, but get into bed with another partner to do so.
That could be why none of Mr XXXXX* proposal is mentioned in any detail. In time it will look as though his offer never existed.
It also looks to us as though the Cabinet report has been written and re-written several times - some paragraphs appear to refer to figures that are no longer in the final report. And it's conclusion leads very clearly toward an option to put the pool
out to a sort of quasi-tender where you assess the 'suitability' of some potential bidders then enter into a dialogue with one or more of them to jointly agree what can be done.
This process typically uses what appears to be an objective 'scoring' system that first weights a range of issues about the company - like their financial standing, management structure, experience and so on. Each of these characteristics is scored
say 10%, 20% or 30% or whatever of a total 100%, then you evaluate each company against the matrix to come up with a preferred company, and you then choose which one you want to work with based on that.
It appears to be a wholly objective way because at the end you can say 'company A' scored 98 and 'company B' scored 70 or whatever (so A is obviously better than B). But it isn't at all objective. Like so much of the approach of this administration
it's a con. There is no proper price-based tendering, even though the report makes it look as though this is the aim. The administration chooses what features to assess, and they choose what weighting to give them. So when it comes time to evaluate
them by numbers, the one you wanted all along has come up trumps (simply because you structured the questions and the weighting to make sure they did). But it LOOKS as though you have an objective system.
As the report itself concludes,
"This process would clearly lead to the project being prolonged by a number of months and may require the Council - in the meantime - to re-commission the pool to prevent serious deterioration. This will clearly incur capital costs that are not
budgeted for" (They're probably planning to use the Heeley Road windfall if that materialises quickly enough, or some of the £700,000 loan they have just signed up to over the next 25 years.
So there you are, according to the report, Mr XXXXX* was to be kicked into the long grass.
They know the pool is about to fall apart inside, and now they have to waste yet more of our money to 're-commission' the pool. But don't expect that to mean the pool will open to the public. What we're talking about here is putting right the
damage that their stupidity and incompetence has caused to date by the complete shutdown, and bringing the pool up to the 'tick over' operation it should have been running at in the first place!
We don't know enough of the details of Mr XXXXX*
'added value' proposals nor the impact of them on existing users of the other leisure facilities to be able to make the assessments. It may be they would not be acceptable. Neither do we know his financial standing or where his money for this would
come from. So it may be there are uncertainties enough to justify a ditching of the proposal.
But to have that decision made by a very limited (handful at best) number of Councillors is a disgrace.
Furthermore, we don't recall hearing any assurances that the money was immediately available. How would Cllr Henshaw know anyway?. The way the Commissar keeps other Councillors in the dark, its amazing they get to hear anything. Several
tell us they hear what's going on in Fylde more through these pages on counterbalance than from their agendas.
Before the Cabinet meeting there was an email sent to all Councillors (copied to the media) from our own Saint Barbara Pagett. We had a copy of it forwarded on from a friend.
She had got wind of what was going on and was VERY cross.
She said she had heard something about [Mr XXXXX*] plans but she knew that the majority of Councillors hadn't been told anything about them.
As a St Anne's Councillor, she wanted to know what the plans were in detail, why all the Councillors had not received details of them, why only the Portfolio Holder had gone to a presentation of the plans, and why all the other councillors
had not even been told about the presentation.
The Commissar was furious about this leak. He told her "Not only are these emails misleading and inaccurate all the way through - they also expose a fundamental lack of understanding as to how Local Government works and what is expressed in
the Cabinet report!"
"....Plans, suggestions put forward so far are in my opinion "Commercial in Confidence" and therefore not for wider consumption. I can give an assurance that members will see the final proposals which may be received, probably as an exempt
item in due course."
In answer to the question 'What are these plans', he said "The recommendations to be presented on Wednesday will flush these out, no one has put forward plans based on what the Council wants".
And in answer to 'Why have ALL councillors not received FULL information regarding them?' he said "No information to give them! "
counterbalance is happy to help Fylde's Councillors out with at least some of the information they need.
But what you see here is the appaling way Fylde now operates through this Politburo.
Information is managed and withheld from those we elect to represent us so they can't do their job.
In effect what the Commissar is saying is: This is nothing to do with you. It's a matter for the Cabinet / Portfolio Holder to make the decision on. Just shut up and stay quiet until we're ready to tell you about it.
This is the travesty of democracy we said would come in 'Death of Democracy' when this appalling Cabinet system was adopted.
It is creating the Banana Republic of Fylde, complete with its own home grown Dictator who rules by information-control and spin, and he uses a system of administration where the Constitution is re-written (only they call it 'refreshing')
every month or so to let the administration bend the rules to do just what they want when the normal checks and balances would otherwise prevent them from doing so.
It is simply awful.
It is the fundamental underlying cause of the malaise that is Fylde Council today, and it is amazing that intelligent councillors are prepared to put up with being abused in this way - and that comment may be taken to include some within
the Cabinet that ought to know better.
So what did the Politburo Cabinet decide when it met?
That's a rhetorical question of course. It didn't decide anything. That had all been worked out and decided well before the actual Cabinet meeting.
Introducing the item Cllr Fazackerley said "Closing of the Pool at St Anne's was something none of us wanted to do. But at that time, the public subsidy associated with the running of the two pools was in excess of £500,000 pa and the pools
at that time were certainly not being used to capacity"
She also said "I would urge you tonight to take the first steps on the path to reopening St Anne's Pool by endorsing the recommendations on tonight's order paper to explore the options for re-opening the pool with a tendering exercise
undertaken on the lines described from paragraph 16 onwards"
Turning to St Barbara Pagett's email, she said "There have been criticisms made of activities behind the scenes as it were, involved in the preparation of this report, and the proposals contained therein.
So to hopefully make matters a little clearer, discussions about St Anne's Pool in recent months have generated some competing interests from would-be operators, and what we are seeking to do, via the Cabinet report, is to implement an
objective framework through which these competing interests can be assessed to make sure that if the pool is to re-open, it does so in a manner which is in the best interests of the local community, and is also fair to the operators who have
It's as simple and uncomplicated as that, and I can assure you that there has been no secret agenda or suspect and dubious negotiations taking place to my certain knowledge.
The Leader has referred to some, well, notes, is the way that I would describe from a certain member of this Council, and I'm sure Councillors present will know to whom I referring and I would like to comment briefly on those.
I would like to stress. that it was only at the 11th hour, that interest has been shown in operating the pool from other organisations, apart from the YMCA, and a private operator who contacted the Council some months ago and whose
proposals have been shown to the two portfolio holders involved in the re-opening consultations and the Leader of the Council. Obviously when this operator visited the Town Hall with his ideas, they had to remain highly confidential, as they
went into great financial detail which could not be bandied about at this stage.
To quote Councillor Coombes response to this particular Councillor if I may, "If I was a businessman, presenting a business plan, the last thing I would want is for 51 councillors to see it before I was clear about what the selection
process was for the future operation of the pool. I would not be giving all my ideas and costings to a group of people that could inadvertently pass them on to other interested parties".
And as I say, to my knowledge only a couple of leading officers, Councillor Small, the Leader and I, have seen this information, which is how it should be at this stage. And this, fellow councillors, is what forced us into a tender process.
And far from it being what may be perceived as cloak and dagger, it is precisely in the interests of transparency that this is the path we are intending to go down, to give all interested parties a bite at the cherry.
The Portfolio Holders concerned and the Cabinet are determined to get this right and ensure that any potential bidders for the operation of any of our facilities can put forward their plans with the confidence they will remain
confidential, and be given considered, even handed determination.
But members can be assured that they will see the final proposals which may be received in due course, probably as an exempt item. What the Councillor to whom I have previously referred, refers to as consultation before implementation"
There are some interesting phrases here. We think its less a 'bite of a cherry' and more a mouthful of poison that is on offer if that Air Handling Unit is as bad as we suspect it will be. Equally interesting is the claim that they have
now been 'forced into' a tender process. Interesting choice of words that, as is the philosophy that says they will be open and transparent - in the same paragraph that says it will probably be considered as an exempt item (which means
it will be discussed in secret, with press and public excluded).
Crucially she added "...I think she's getting confused with the Masterplan for the Promenade, a conceptual document, funded by the Fylde LSP, and often referred to as the Island Scheme, and at the moment, there is no funding for this
scheme, although there is a possibility that one of the fallouts from signing the MAA on Monday night, is that we might get some funding for this scheme if we choose to go ahead with it. This is one of the reasons that a time-limited lease is
envisaged, and obviously now is not the right time for consultation for that scheme. When the time is right, believe me, we will consult...."
What you see here is a previously undisclosed plan. They plan to time limit whoever takes on the pool because they don't want to spoil the chances of the site being redeveloped in the stupid promenade 'Masterplan' which is another disaster
(and isn't a masterplan at all).
She didn't say how long the time limit would be, but based on the way this plan arose from Dim Tim a month or so ago as an election sweetener, we wouldn't be surprised to see a shortish period - perhaps until the elections in 2011?
Finally, she added a fourth recommendation to those set out on the Agenda "That the relevant Portfolio Holders continue to be involved in any on-going negotiations related to the possible re-opening of St Anne's Pool, simply to speed up the
process for that re-opening before any further deterioration caused by non-usage - which is an important factor - is incurred. "
She obviously knows about the condition they have allowed the Pool to fall into.
Seconding her proposition, Cllr Roger Small said "I want to make something very, very, clear. There are no secret deals with any parties at this stage. Yes, Cllr Fazackerley and I have sat down with the YMCA on preliminary discussions, but
we have never, ever got to the point of actually going looking at detailed figures. We've never actually gone that far. And obviously, once we've got and external party that's also interested in that, I think we'd be extremely foolish not to
actually consider that. Because the arrangement with the YMCA would be on a similar arrangement to what's happening currently in Kirkham, in that we would be working in partnership, but we would have to provide a considerable subsidy each
year, that, frankly, colleagues, we don't have. And, you know, I don't want to put a huge damper on this but I think it is important that I do stress to you, we are in the middle of a recession that's going to be long."
and ".....obviously things are being leaked. I can assure you and I think most people in this room, including members at the back know me well enough to know I have never leaked anything in my whole career as a councillor and I wouldn't
dream of doing so because I find it deplorable. And I do think in those particular cases, it doesn't help matters when stories like that are leaked, because obviously, the important thing is that we can re-open that pool, whether its with a
leisure centre attached or whether its with a kind of err, public sector, or whether it's with a priv - but we can re-open that pool, and it's sustainable, at a cost that is manageable, and one that's there for a number of years to come. So in
terms of doing that, I'm quite happy to second Councillor Fazackerley."
Closing the 'debate' (if such it can be called, it was really more of a presentation than a debate), the Commissar returned to St Barbara Pagett's email. It had obviously niggled him. He said
"Don't forget we have shadow Portfolio Holders who have monthly meetings with the Chief Executive. We also have a series of meetings arranged - trying to arrange - with the leader of the opposition, and they are the right mechanisms for
opposition councillors, whether they are Liberal Democrats, or independents or whatever, to meet with the Chief Exec on a monthly basis to discuss these sensitive issues, erm, in private. Sadly, those offers aren't taken up as often as they
should be and perhaps as a result of that, some people do end up feeling that they're feeling in the dark. But the mechanism is there...... We've had the recommendation, it's been seconded by the portfolio holder, a way to move forward, and
I'm sure that Councillor Fazackerley, with that extra recommendation of the relevant members taking this item forward quickly will ensure that this isn't a long, drawn out, process, and that members of the Council will be kept informed and be
brought back for a final decision sooner or later. So I'm happy with that report and those recommendations".
The vote of the 'Magnificent Seven' of the Politburo Cabinet was unanimous
What you see in the first part of his statement reflects the mistake made by Councillors who were elected as independents but who have been seduced into creating a formal opposition group, complete with 'Shadow Portfolio Holders' and a
Shadow Cabinet. This legitimises the detestable Politburo Cabinet system and gives the Commissar a stick with which to beat them. He now argues that - even the limited information he is prepared to release - may only be fed through just
these few people, so ordinary rank and file councillors we elect cannot do the job they were elected for - to represent us - because they are as he so describes it "in the dark".
So where does all this get us?
Well, We suspected that the Commissar was trying to screw down the subsidy needed by the YMCA, and probably used the threat of a competitor to try and pressure them. We heard they had walked out of that meeting.
That would leave just Mr XXXXX* plan on the table. We suspect it must have some aspects that are not appealing - whether they are the extending of the plans to other leisure facilities, or whether it is the financial arrangements or some other
aspect we don't know. But if the Council feels it can hold it up as a credible offer, the YM probably won't like the idea of a competitor fitness setup in the town (which would impact on their income), and the Commissar might think this gives
him a stronger hand in negotiation. It looks very much as though that is the direction he is following.
He also claims to have had two other expressions on interest in the last few days. We suspect that's just what they are, expressions of interest, not a real offer, but they do at least provide him with enough cover to decently refuse Mr XXXXX*
offer and set up a quasi tendering exercise. After all, the one thing that wasn't decided at the Politburo Cabinet was whether the tender would limit options to the pool alone, (in which case we believe only the YMCA will be in with a shout),
or whether to open it up to allow consideration of tenders that include 'value added' peripheral leisure facilities. That decision looks as though it will be made out of sight.
We're quite happy to predict that if it is anyone who opens the pool, it will be the YMCA. But sadly, we suspect the deterioration in the pool building will have gone so far that it may not be feasible even for them to open it.
We think this proposed 'tendering' exercise is just a blind.
Fylde did a full-blown formal tendering of the pool that culminated in a report to Cabinet in November 2007. That found that the YMCA could run the pool for £12,000 a year less than the Council, but only because as a charity they don't have to
pay 80% of the business rates that everyone else (including the Council) has to pay in respect of the pool.
The next nearest commercial tender was £100,000 higher than it cost the Council to run the service in-house.
We quite accept that things will have changed a bit since then. The Commissar got rid of all the staff at the pool, so an incoming operator today wouldn't have to accept them on their existing terms and conditions as a TUPE transfer, so a new
operator could pay something closer to peanuts. But interestingly, if Fylde retains ownership of the pool in this instance (as they say they are going to) there might be an issue about which Health and Safety standards for the required number
of pool attendants and lifeguards apply (some private sector pools don't have to have as many as a municipal pool does), and how Fylde's business rates, capital charges and overheads are going to be allocated, so it could be that the
prices will be lower than the 2007 tenders, and that's probably what they are banking on.
But we don't think they've taken proper account of the work needed to get the pool working (let alone open) again, and that could kill the whole scheme.
And of course, we're not entirely sure the Commissar has yet given up on the idea of having someone build him a new pool somewhere else. We introduced this concept in 'Walking on Water'
where he set out Kensington's offer to build a new swimming pool somewhere else in the Borough.
We'll close this item with another quote from his email reply to Saint Barbara Pagett referring to future developments on the promenade:
"...As you know the Island is a private site and the owners will decide how to proceed delendent (sic) on any external funding we can get for a larger modernisation of the site. Now the MAA has been signed and the new RE-Fylde Coast company
a strong possibility we can start to tap into external funding which may be available. Again now is no (sic) the time to consult, but we will. ..Again if you read the report is does state that the Cabinet needs to consider the potential of the
Master Plan. I would suggest that if we were to tender the pool then we would have to do it on a contract that would allow the Council to re-locate the pool to an alternative site (or not) dependent of the outcome. Again Cllr Fazackerley has
this in hand. "
This little incursion may not be over yet of course. We could see the decision of the Cabinet called in for review by a scrutiny Committee. Saint Barbara was pretty mad. She might just go for that option and get some support for it.
Dated: 17 July 2009
* UPDATE 10 August 2009
The name and some proposed costing figures have been removed at the request of the person concerned.