I watched the whole session – it certainly did get heated, and you are right I could hear no thunderous applause at all. That would have been great !
And, I didn’t get enough popcorn …
Attendance & Apologies
If I was a betting man, I took a lottery ticket the illustrious leader would not be in attendance. Helped friends, did he ? Some of the first, were they ?
A true conflict of interest – he should step down.
Kolano was on point – good to hear a member of the public speak and question the council’s handling of compensation claims, noting some property owners still waiting after 5 years.
AND, calling for transparency in property decontamination.
Silence from the council, move on please, nothing to see here …
Unresolved Claims & Asbestos
Well, wasn’t this enlightening. It became very clear, very early what the council thought about this.
Peter Anderson did a stellar job – 5 years in 5 minutes ! He still got a pointed message to the council. And they were Not Happy Jan.
The man obviously knows his stuff. Good to see he is advocating for the community and some individuals. Heavens knows the council isn’t on the right side of things …
One person : 150 attempts – oh my goodness me.
Nothing much more you can say really.
Yes, I was pleased to see the public not happy with some of the councillor’s behaviours. Neither was I. Particularly from the female councillors.
In fact, their behaviour throughout was nothing short of shameful and brought great disrespect to those affected, some apparently sitting in the public gallery.
You note one Labor supporter hurling profanities at one of the Independent Councillors. Can you imagine if the shoe was on the other foot ?
And not removed from the meeting. Shameful.
I would suggest there are 3 women councillors that should step down – immediately. They were not present to progress any matters at all.
I watched with interest these 3 women for the one motion that got up – do we all agree that all claims be settled and finalised etc
one of them was actually hiding her face, you could see the contempt written all over her.
157 letters – and not the decency to reply to any one of them ? ‘It was more like a petition’ was her response. So, what – a petition from the public still deserves an answer.
Public petitions are a strong voice.
Peter Anderson has been all over this - and so the council’s response to that pesky man : UCC him. That’ll shut him up.
Mr Anderson brought up many valid points - $500,000 in claims paid. Only $500,000. I was told it was well over $3m. But I don’t think any figures have been reported in the yearly financials’ council present to the public ? Unless I’ve missed it ?
Another well qualified community member did a slide presentation – on point. He highlighted discrepancies in council’s own statements as compared to the structural engineer’s reports. Several reports over several years.
And same female councillors extremely rude responses, attacking his credentials and professional qualifications, aggressive and completely irrelevant questions : Do you live in Cooma North ? Are you a member of the emergency services ?
Who the hell does this woman think she is ?
The Public Gallery were on Point. Disgraceful behaviour.
Thank goodness for the public presentations – yes, each one in their own way highlighted the many issues covered up by council. Starting with the highlighted misinformation by the Interim CEO in relation to facts from the engineers reports on the tank failure.
Rotten to the core.
Keep up the great work Chris. It’s riveting reading and watching council meetings is now better than any TV or Netflix ! Bring on the popcorn, I say !
A growing number of community members are watching with interest.
Thank you so much for your kind words and support! Your reflections on the topic are both encouraging and insightful—I truly appreciate the time and effort you’ve taken to share them.
It’s heartening to know the community is paying closer attention to these issues. You’re right—Peter Anderson’s contributions were nothing short of stellar, and the public presentations exposed so much that the council clearly hoped would stay buried.
Your observations about the councillors’ behavior mirror the frustration many of us feel. The disrespect, dismissiveness, and outright contempt for valid community concerns and questions were deeply disappointing. Public petitions do deserve answers, and 157 letters ignored is inexcusable.
It’s clear the public gallery wasn’t fooled, and their strong presence is proof that more and more people are standing up to demand better from their representatives. You’re right—this is better than TV because it’s real, it’s important, and it affects us all.
Thank you again for your encouragement. It means so much to know that the work is making a difference and helping shine a light on these issues. Let’s keep the momentum going—and yes, stock up on that popcorn because it’s bound to get even more interesting!
Local Radio news hit piece? Council meeting was a bad day for Cr's Rose, Thaler and Williamson! Complete waste of everyone's time digging up old issues, says Labor!
As someone not closely familiar with the issue of the exploding tank, my impressions of the Council meeting of 24/1 were as follows:
1. Deputy Mayor Hopkins did a very good job chairing the meeting. I believe she earned the respect of all Councillors.
2. Very little was actually achieved at this long meeting (4.5hrs).
3. Councillor Rose's motions seemed poorly formulated, this was a major reason only one of them (as amended) passed.
4. There was some tension at the meeting which was well handled by Dep Mayor Hopkins. There was also some support and applause from the gallery for the complainants but I would hardly have called it 'thunderous'.
The amended motion that passed called for a monthly confidential report to Councillors on the status of any outstanding claims by residents against Council. This seems useful, especially if Council is not already monitoring complaints. However, my understanding is only one person has an outstanding claim with Council, the details of which are not publicly known because it is a Council operational matter.
The rest of the meeting time was consumed by complaining, criticizing, blaming and alleging by the complainants, backed by a tendentious full colour booklet presented to the gallery.
Three persons presented at the meeting, Mr Kolano, Mr Anderson and a 'community member'. Why the coyness in naming the 'community member'? I believe he was required to name himself at the meeting, which he did as Mr Nolte. Clr Davis asked if they lived in Cooma North (the affected area) and it seems they did not. Clr Davis also had to point out what the complainants failed to mention that the water tank collapse was at the height of the bushfire emergency in 2020.
From what I could gather Mr Anderson is engaged (hired?) by an affected resident, and he in turn hired Mr Nolte to do some work (a report) for them.
Councillors and staff had to make the following points, all of which were not stated or ignored by the complainants:
1. The decision to fill the tank in 2020 was made by qualified senior staff. Councillors & Mayor were not advised or involved.
2. The incident occurred at the height of the bushfire crisis.
3.The RFS (Rural Fire Service) does not have responsibility for the decision to fill the tank. If this is the case, Councillors were understandably anxious to protect the RFS from a damaging allegation.
4. The Mayor and a number senior staff and Councillors at the time of the incident are no longer in office.
5. Council has already planned, approved and funded the construction of a replacement tank. We need to proceed without delay.
6. Applications for funding or part funding for tank reconstruction have already been sent, so far without success.
7. Motions for action can be moved, but if funding has not been approved or pre-approved, staff will have to report back to Council that the motion could not be actioned for that reason.
There was some further discussion about asbestos and insurance which I did not fully comprehend. I could use some further clarification and information about these issues.
I believe the largely negative and critical attitude of the complainants is unnecessary and demoralizing for Council, staff and the community. Instead of 'Back to Basics', I would rather support 'Looking Forward'.
Thanks for sharing your perspective. It’s clear you’re taking the time to engage with the issues, and I appreciate that.
1. I largely agree that Tricia did a better job than Hanna usually does. Hopefully we'll get to see more of her in the future. Nevertheless, a well-chaired meeting means little if it still results in no meaningful action.
2. You noted that little was achieved in 4.5 hours. That’s exactly the problem. The Council has had five years to act on this disaster, and yet here we are—still pushing for basic accountability and transparency. That’s not on the complainants; that’s on those in power who have resisted scrutiny at every turn.
3. Regarding Councillor Rose’s motions: While you suggest they were poorly formulated, they were at least an attempt to push for answers. When councillors act as gatekeepers instead of representatives, it’s easy to nitpick procedural flaws while avoiding the real issue: why has Council refused to allow any formal discussion of this disaster for five years?
4. Thunderous applause: I can only speak to what was experienced in the room by myself and others, it was clear that community members present were frustrated and vocal in their support of the 'complainants'. The fact that this was one of the best-attended Council meetings in recent history speaks for itself.
In regards to your other points:
1. "The decision to fill the tank in 2020 was made by qualified senior staff. Councillors & Mayor were not advised or involved.” How do we/you know? This has never been formally established. Though it may be a convenient excuse, it raises more questions than it answers. If senior staff made this decision independently, then where is the accountability for their actions? Which staff? If this was an operational decision, then who exactly authorized it, and why haven’t they been held responsible?
If elected representatives had no oversight on such a critical decision, it highlights a major governance failure—one that should concern every resident.
2. “The incident occurred at the height of the bushfire crisis.” This is an attempt to use a broader crisis as a smokescreen for negligence (pun intended). The bushfires had nothing to do with the structural integrity of the tank. If anything, the emergency should have made careful decision-making even more important, not an excuse for recklessness.
3. “The RFS (Rural Fire Service) does not have responsibility for the decision to fill the tank.”
This is a deflection and an oddly specific statement. No one was blaming the RFS for the tank’s failure—this was never the issue. The real question remains: Who gave the order to fill the tank? Why was it given? Was due diligence followed to ensure the tank was structurally sound?
The sudden mention of the RFS appears to be a diversion tactic, seemingly introduced by the Labor Councillors. Rightly so, the Independents called this out as a false statement. Instead of addressing the core issue of accountability, this misleading argument attempted to create a distraction. The community is not interested in political maneuvering—we want clear, factual answers about the decisions that led to this disaster.
4. “The Mayor and a number of senior staff and Councillors at the time of the incident are no longer in office.”
New leadership does not erase past failures. Government is a continuing institution, and accountability does not expire when officials leave. The affected residents were left to pick up the pieces of a disaster caused by the Council’s operations. The question remains: why has there been no formal investigation into what happened, who was responsible, and how similar failures can be prevented in the future?
5&6. “Council has already planned, approved, and funded the construction of a replacement tank. We need to proceed without delay.” and “Applications for funding or part-funding for tank reconstruction have already been sent, so far without success.”
A new tank does not replace accountability for the damage caused by the collapse. Additionally, as Bob Stewart alluded to, this is an election period, and it’s highly likely that the major parties will start being more generous during this time. Seeking additional grant funds shouldn't cause any significant delays.
7. “Motions for action can be moved, but if funding has not been approved or pre-approved, staff will have to report back to Council that the motion could not be actioned for that reason.”
This is a bureaucratic excuse to justify inaction. Investigations and accountability measures do not require new funding—they require the political will to prioritize the community over self-preservation. Many of the concerns raised by the affected residents relate to transparency, public reporting, and ensuring no similar disaster happens again. These actions do not require additional funding; they require leadership.
Final Thoughts:
These justifications are nothing more than attempts to shift blame and avoid accountability. If the Council was genuinely committed to serving its community, it would have conducted a formal investigation years ago. Instead, it has spent five years avoiding the issue, refusing to table motions, blocking discussions, and now making excuses.
“Looking forward” only works when you first address the failures of the past. The Council and its supporters would love for this issue to just disappear, but the affected residents deserve more than a pat on the head and a new tank. They deserve answers, justice, and accountability.
If it had been you, a relative, or a friend who—after five years—was still waiting for compensation and remediation, I think you’d be a little more sympathetic to what they've endured instead of casually ignoring their concerns and simply "looking forward." Moving forward without addressing the past only ensures that history will repeat itself, leaving more residents vulnerable to the same negligence.
We’re not here to be “negative”—we’re here to make sure this never happens again.
Sounds like you are wiping a dead horse. The cause is known, and I would had thought was understandable given the looming disaster of the bushfires. Why not expand some of your resources on the insurance companies that haven’t paid up individually claims or raise funds for those residents that didn’t have insurance.
The council’s “cure” was far worse than the bushfires. They lied from the beginning, never apologized, never corrected the record, and still haven’t remediated the properties they destroyed. This disaster was caused by the council’s negligence, and they must be held accountable to fix the mess they created. If someone dumped asbestos all over Mayor Hanna’s backyard and never compensated him, you can bet he’d be far more concerned about justice for the victims.
This isn’t just an insurance issue—it’s about exposing ongoing failures and demanding accountability for actions that devastated an entire community. It shouldn’t take hundreds of letters and legal threats for residents to get the basic justice they deserve.
This was Cooma’s most significant man-made disaster, and yet there’s been zero investigation. How is that acceptable?
Not sure about your ‘cure’ analogy. I’m sure those households in Los Angles would disagree with your presumption.
As to the asbestos, there was none in the water tank, so maybe you can take up the issue with builder of the houses rather than the rate payers.
Cannot comment on the accusation of lies as you’ve really not demonstrated that at all.
I’m not ignoring your call for justice, just believe that your continued calls for it without substantive evidence is starting to look like grandstanding….are really about the affected residents or just promoting your selected councillors?
1. What happened here wasn’t just a failure; it was a preventable disaster exacerbated by council mismanagement. Comparing this to Los Angeles households is irrelevant and dismissive of the specific failures in Cooma.
2. Regarding asbestos, the material was spread across properties as a result of the tank collapse, regardless of its origin. The responsibility for remediation lies with the council because their negligence caused the disaster in the first place. Shifting the blame to builders or uninsured homeowners is not only factually incorrect but deeply unfair to the victims.
3. So many lies, where to start? I'm surprised you're unaware of them. The Mayor and council issued the following statements and more.
a) "It's always been a very safe tank. It is very unexpected that it gave way." b) "...we will try and see what's caused it..."
c) "The reservoir had recently undergone structural checks and was deemed safe..."
4. Calling this “grandstanding” ignores the basic facts: justice hasn’t been served. The affected residents are still waiting for accountability and action, and it shouldn’t matter who’s calling for it. This is about holding those responsible to account—not promoting anyone, but protecting the community from this kind of failure happening again.
5. Are you genuinely interested in justice and accountability, or are you just deflecting from the message because of your apparent sensitivities over a certain councillor/s? It seems like your focus is less on the facts and more on discrediting those raising legitimate concerns.
Justice and the law are very different topics. You are attempting to whip up a frenzy and unfortunately it’s to your detriment and that of the affected residents.
Strange that you see exposing the council's failures as a detriment to the community. I don’t see having an informed community as a detriment to myself or my neighbors. Thankfully, the Independents have secured remediation for some claimants who were owed compensation after years of neglect. You might not understand or believe that, but fortunately for the claimants, they remember.
It is about putting the affected residents back to where they were, not forcing them to live with the risk of asbestos from council neglecting it's responsibilities.
Thank you for your reports, and to all of those who have campaigned so tirelessly and so long to have this issue resolved: thank you.
Thanks for your support!
Chris, another great summary !
I watched the whole session – it certainly did get heated, and you are right I could hear no thunderous applause at all. That would have been great !
And, I didn’t get enough popcorn …
Attendance & Apologies
If I was a betting man, I took a lottery ticket the illustrious leader would not be in attendance. Helped friends, did he ? Some of the first, were they ?
A true conflict of interest – he should step down.
Kolano was on point – good to hear a member of the public speak and question the council’s handling of compensation claims, noting some property owners still waiting after 5 years.
AND, calling for transparency in property decontamination.
Silence from the council, move on please, nothing to see here …
Unresolved Claims & Asbestos
Well, wasn’t this enlightening. It became very clear, very early what the council thought about this.
Peter Anderson did a stellar job – 5 years in 5 minutes ! He still got a pointed message to the council. And they were Not Happy Jan.
The man obviously knows his stuff. Good to see he is advocating for the community and some individuals. Heavens knows the council isn’t on the right side of things …
One person : 150 attempts – oh my goodness me.
Nothing much more you can say really.
Yes, I was pleased to see the public not happy with some of the councillor’s behaviours. Neither was I. Particularly from the female councillors.
In fact, their behaviour throughout was nothing short of shameful and brought great disrespect to those affected, some apparently sitting in the public gallery.
You note one Labor supporter hurling profanities at one of the Independent Councillors. Can you imagine if the shoe was on the other foot ?
And not removed from the meeting. Shameful.
I would suggest there are 3 women councillors that should step down – immediately. They were not present to progress any matters at all.
I watched with interest these 3 women for the one motion that got up – do we all agree that all claims be settled and finalised etc
one of them was actually hiding her face, you could see the contempt written all over her.
157 letters – and not the decency to reply to any one of them ? ‘It was more like a petition’ was her response. So, what – a petition from the public still deserves an answer.
Public petitions are a strong voice.
Peter Anderson has been all over this - and so the council’s response to that pesky man : UCC him. That’ll shut him up.
Mr Anderson brought up many valid points - $500,000 in claims paid. Only $500,000. I was told it was well over $3m. But I don’t think any figures have been reported in the yearly financials’ council present to the public ? Unless I’ve missed it ?
Another well qualified community member did a slide presentation – on point. He highlighted discrepancies in council’s own statements as compared to the structural engineer’s reports. Several reports over several years.
And same female councillors extremely rude responses, attacking his credentials and professional qualifications, aggressive and completely irrelevant questions : Do you live in Cooma North ? Are you a member of the emergency services ?
Who the hell does this woman think she is ?
The Public Gallery were on Point. Disgraceful behaviour.
Thank goodness for the public presentations – yes, each one in their own way highlighted the many issues covered up by council. Starting with the highlighted misinformation by the Interim CEO in relation to facts from the engineers reports on the tank failure.
Rotten to the core.
Keep up the great work Chris. It’s riveting reading and watching council meetings is now better than any TV or Netflix ! Bring on the popcorn, I say !
A growing number of community members are watching with interest.
Thank you so much for your kind words and support! Your reflections on the topic are both encouraging and insightful—I truly appreciate the time and effort you’ve taken to share them.
It’s heartening to know the community is paying closer attention to these issues. You’re right—Peter Anderson’s contributions were nothing short of stellar, and the public presentations exposed so much that the council clearly hoped would stay buried.
Your observations about the councillors’ behavior mirror the frustration many of us feel. The disrespect, dismissiveness, and outright contempt for valid community concerns and questions were deeply disappointing. Public petitions do deserve answers, and 157 letters ignored is inexcusable.
It’s clear the public gallery wasn’t fooled, and their strong presence is proof that more and more people are standing up to demand better from their representatives. You’re right—this is better than TV because it’s real, it’s important, and it affects us all.
Thank you again for your encouragement. It means so much to know that the work is making a difference and helping shine a light on these issues. Let’s keep the momentum going—and yes, stock up on that popcorn because it’s bound to get even more interesting!
Absolutely - to all of the above.
The female councillors behaviour showed no respect, but deep disrespect for those in attendance and those that have been affected and still are.
No empathy or compassion at all. But rude, aggressive and dismissive to any who presented facts. None to their liking ...
Kolano - a much respected member of the public having his say.
Peter Anderson - mind like a steel trap ! Clearly no match for anyone in the council.
The professional who presented the slides - he's on the money as well.
Well done to all those and the independents who against all odds ( and much opposition from all of council ) managed to get it to the councils table.
Took 5 years of council opposition to be able to get to this point.
Congratulations to all of you !
Thankyou for the write up Chris.
I was shocked by the callous disregard for affected residents displayed by the Labor gang.. of which I include Narelle and Rooney.
Rooney did not say one word the whole meeting to my memory!
On Point !
Local Radio news hit piece? Council meeting was a bad day for Cr's Rose, Thaler and Williamson! Complete waste of everyone's time digging up old issues, says Labor!
If only they had sorted it out in the first place instead of telling porky after porky after porky ...
then we wouldn't be here today !
Isn't it a shame we can only hear the truth via alternative media?
Indeed …
Looking Forward
As someone not closely familiar with the issue of the exploding tank, my impressions of the Council meeting of 24/1 were as follows:
1. Deputy Mayor Hopkins did a very good job chairing the meeting. I believe she earned the respect of all Councillors.
2. Very little was actually achieved at this long meeting (4.5hrs).
3. Councillor Rose's motions seemed poorly formulated, this was a major reason only one of them (as amended) passed.
4. There was some tension at the meeting which was well handled by Dep Mayor Hopkins. There was also some support and applause from the gallery for the complainants but I would hardly have called it 'thunderous'.
The amended motion that passed called for a monthly confidential report to Councillors on the status of any outstanding claims by residents against Council. This seems useful, especially if Council is not already monitoring complaints. However, my understanding is only one person has an outstanding claim with Council, the details of which are not publicly known because it is a Council operational matter.
The rest of the meeting time was consumed by complaining, criticizing, blaming and alleging by the complainants, backed by a tendentious full colour booklet presented to the gallery.
Three persons presented at the meeting, Mr Kolano, Mr Anderson and a 'community member'. Why the coyness in naming the 'community member'? I believe he was required to name himself at the meeting, which he did as Mr Nolte. Clr Davis asked if they lived in Cooma North (the affected area) and it seems they did not. Clr Davis also had to point out what the complainants failed to mention that the water tank collapse was at the height of the bushfire emergency in 2020.
From what I could gather Mr Anderson is engaged (hired?) by an affected resident, and he in turn hired Mr Nolte to do some work (a report) for them.
Councillors and staff had to make the following points, all of which were not stated or ignored by the complainants:
1. The decision to fill the tank in 2020 was made by qualified senior staff. Councillors & Mayor were not advised or involved.
2. The incident occurred at the height of the bushfire crisis.
3.The RFS (Rural Fire Service) does not have responsibility for the decision to fill the tank. If this is the case, Councillors were understandably anxious to protect the RFS from a damaging allegation.
4. The Mayor and a number senior staff and Councillors at the time of the incident are no longer in office.
5. Council has already planned, approved and funded the construction of a replacement tank. We need to proceed without delay.
6. Applications for funding or part funding for tank reconstruction have already been sent, so far without success.
7. Motions for action can be moved, but if funding has not been approved or pre-approved, staff will have to report back to Council that the motion could not be actioned for that reason.
There was some further discussion about asbestos and insurance which I did not fully comprehend. I could use some further clarification and information about these issues.
I believe the largely negative and critical attitude of the complainants is unnecessary and demoralizing for Council, staff and the community. Instead of 'Back to Basics', I would rather support 'Looking Forward'.
BRooney 4/2
Thanks for sharing your perspective. It’s clear you’re taking the time to engage with the issues, and I appreciate that.
1. I largely agree that Tricia did a better job than Hanna usually does. Hopefully we'll get to see more of her in the future. Nevertheless, a well-chaired meeting means little if it still results in no meaningful action.
2. You noted that little was achieved in 4.5 hours. That’s exactly the problem. The Council has had five years to act on this disaster, and yet here we are—still pushing for basic accountability and transparency. That’s not on the complainants; that’s on those in power who have resisted scrutiny at every turn.
3. Regarding Councillor Rose’s motions: While you suggest they were poorly formulated, they were at least an attempt to push for answers. When councillors act as gatekeepers instead of representatives, it’s easy to nitpick procedural flaws while avoiding the real issue: why has Council refused to allow any formal discussion of this disaster for five years?
4. Thunderous applause: I can only speak to what was experienced in the room by myself and others, it was clear that community members present were frustrated and vocal in their support of the 'complainants'. The fact that this was one of the best-attended Council meetings in recent history speaks for itself.
In regards to your other points:
1. "The decision to fill the tank in 2020 was made by qualified senior staff. Councillors & Mayor were not advised or involved.” How do we/you know? This has never been formally established. Though it may be a convenient excuse, it raises more questions than it answers. If senior staff made this decision independently, then where is the accountability for their actions? Which staff? If this was an operational decision, then who exactly authorized it, and why haven’t they been held responsible?
If elected representatives had no oversight on such a critical decision, it highlights a major governance failure—one that should concern every resident.
2. “The incident occurred at the height of the bushfire crisis.” This is an attempt to use a broader crisis as a smokescreen for negligence (pun intended). The bushfires had nothing to do with the structural integrity of the tank. If anything, the emergency should have made careful decision-making even more important, not an excuse for recklessness.
3. “The RFS (Rural Fire Service) does not have responsibility for the decision to fill the tank.”
This is a deflection and an oddly specific statement. No one was blaming the RFS for the tank’s failure—this was never the issue. The real question remains: Who gave the order to fill the tank? Why was it given? Was due diligence followed to ensure the tank was structurally sound?
The sudden mention of the RFS appears to be a diversion tactic, seemingly introduced by the Labor Councillors. Rightly so, the Independents called this out as a false statement. Instead of addressing the core issue of accountability, this misleading argument attempted to create a distraction. The community is not interested in political maneuvering—we want clear, factual answers about the decisions that led to this disaster.
4. “The Mayor and a number of senior staff and Councillors at the time of the incident are no longer in office.”
New leadership does not erase past failures. Government is a continuing institution, and accountability does not expire when officials leave. The affected residents were left to pick up the pieces of a disaster caused by the Council’s operations. The question remains: why has there been no formal investigation into what happened, who was responsible, and how similar failures can be prevented in the future?
5&6. “Council has already planned, approved, and funded the construction of a replacement tank. We need to proceed without delay.” and “Applications for funding or part-funding for tank reconstruction have already been sent, so far without success.”
A new tank does not replace accountability for the damage caused by the collapse. Additionally, as Bob Stewart alluded to, this is an election period, and it’s highly likely that the major parties will start being more generous during this time. Seeking additional grant funds shouldn't cause any significant delays.
7. “Motions for action can be moved, but if funding has not been approved or pre-approved, staff will have to report back to Council that the motion could not be actioned for that reason.”
This is a bureaucratic excuse to justify inaction. Investigations and accountability measures do not require new funding—they require the political will to prioritize the community over self-preservation. Many of the concerns raised by the affected residents relate to transparency, public reporting, and ensuring no similar disaster happens again. These actions do not require additional funding; they require leadership.
Final Thoughts:
These justifications are nothing more than attempts to shift blame and avoid accountability. If the Council was genuinely committed to serving its community, it would have conducted a formal investigation years ago. Instead, it has spent five years avoiding the issue, refusing to table motions, blocking discussions, and now making excuses.
“Looking forward” only works when you first address the failures of the past. The Council and its supporters would love for this issue to just disappear, but the affected residents deserve more than a pat on the head and a new tank. They deserve answers, justice, and accountability.
If it had been you, a relative, or a friend who—after five years—was still waiting for compensation and remediation, I think you’d be a little more sympathetic to what they've endured instead of casually ignoring their concerns and simply "looking forward." Moving forward without addressing the past only ensures that history will repeat itself, leaving more residents vulnerable to the same negligence.
We’re not here to be “negative”—we’re here to make sure this never happens again.
#MonaroStrong
So can I 'file' (ignore) 150+ rates notices for my property with no repercussions?
Sounds like you are wiping a dead horse. The cause is known, and I would had thought was understandable given the looming disaster of the bushfires. Why not expand some of your resources on the insurance companies that haven’t paid up individually claims or raise funds for those residents that didn’t have insurance.
The council’s “cure” was far worse than the bushfires. They lied from the beginning, never apologized, never corrected the record, and still haven’t remediated the properties they destroyed. This disaster was caused by the council’s negligence, and they must be held accountable to fix the mess they created. If someone dumped asbestos all over Mayor Hanna’s backyard and never compensated him, you can bet he’d be far more concerned about justice for the victims.
This isn’t just an insurance issue—it’s about exposing ongoing failures and demanding accountability for actions that devastated an entire community. It shouldn’t take hundreds of letters and legal threats for residents to get the basic justice they deserve.
This was Cooma’s most significant man-made disaster, and yet there’s been zero investigation. How is that acceptable?
IT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE ...
Maybe some of the councillors elected represents a significant man made disaster too.
Not sure about your ‘cure’ analogy. I’m sure those households in Los Angles would disagree with your presumption.
As to the asbestos, there was none in the water tank, so maybe you can take up the issue with builder of the houses rather than the rate payers.
Cannot comment on the accusation of lies as you’ve really not demonstrated that at all.
I’m not ignoring your call for justice, just believe that your continued calls for it without substantive evidence is starting to look like grandstanding….are really about the affected residents or just promoting your selected councillors?
1. What happened here wasn’t just a failure; it was a preventable disaster exacerbated by council mismanagement. Comparing this to Los Angeles households is irrelevant and dismissive of the specific failures in Cooma.
2. Regarding asbestos, the material was spread across properties as a result of the tank collapse, regardless of its origin. The responsibility for remediation lies with the council because their negligence caused the disaster in the first place. Shifting the blame to builders or uninsured homeowners is not only factually incorrect but deeply unfair to the victims.
3. So many lies, where to start? I'm surprised you're unaware of them. The Mayor and council issued the following statements and more.
a) "It's always been a very safe tank. It is very unexpected that it gave way." b) "...we will try and see what's caused it..."
c) "The reservoir had recently undergone structural checks and was deemed safe..."
4. Calling this “grandstanding” ignores the basic facts: justice hasn’t been served. The affected residents are still waiting for accountability and action, and it shouldn’t matter who’s calling for it. This is about holding those responsible to account—not promoting anyone, but protecting the community from this kind of failure happening again.
5. Are you genuinely interested in justice and accountability, or are you just deflecting from the message because of your apparent sensitivities over a certain councillor/s? It seems like your focus is less on the facts and more on discrediting those raising legitimate concerns.
Justice and the law are very different topics. You are attempting to whip up a frenzy and unfortunately it’s to your detriment and that of the affected residents.
Strange that you see exposing the council's failures as a detriment to the community. I don’t see having an informed community as a detriment to myself or my neighbors. Thankfully, the Independents have secured remediation for some claimants who were owed compensation after years of neglect. You might not understand or believe that, but fortunately for the claimants, they remember.
It is about putting the affected residents back to where they were, not forcing them to live with the risk of asbestos from council neglecting it's responsibilities.