Category: Abuse of Power

Creative Accounting or Community Gaslighting?

This post is the part of a Follow the Money  series shining a light on Kiama Council’s ongoing failure to even interpret its own spreadsheets.

I’ve been digging into Kiama Council’s legal expenses and what I’ve found is confusing, frustrating, and frankly concerning.

Here are the comparisons that matter:

Council Population (approx.) 2023/24 Legal Costs Spend Per Resident
Kiama 23,400 $3,369,000 $144
Port Macquarie–Hastings 50,560 $250,000 $5
Shellharbour 76,200 $858,000 $11

Kiama, with the smallest population, spent by far the most on legal bills. At $144 per person, Kiama’s costs tower over Shellharbour ($11) and Port Macquarie–Hastings ($5).

A pattern of costly errors

This blowout is not an isolated issue. Council’s financial reporting on major risk areas keeps needing “fixes” after the fact:

If developer levies can be overcharged, and legal costs can be double-counted, what confidence can the public have in any top-line figure?

Meanwhile, “Other Legal Expenses” jumped from $204,000 in 2020/21 to $3.3 million in 2023/24 — a sixteen-fold increase in three years. In the same period, total legal expenses rose from $416,000 to $3.37 million.

Where Council points… and where the money actually goes

Council is very happy to outline where Land & Environment Court (LEC) costs are spent — case lists, updates, outcomes — and it is true that LEC matters account for around 53% of legal costs (excluding the Daoud Federal Court case).

But here’s the catch:

  • Probity/General legal advice soaks up another 37%.

  • When I asked for a breakdown of these “other” costs, the Public Officer refused to provide it.

This is the deflection at play.  Council points to the unavoidable LEC cases, but goes silent on the categories where the blowouts are happening.

Are LEC costs really unavoidable?

Council insists LEC costs are unavoidable. But the record shows many cases should never have reached court at all.

  • Yes, developers have a legal right to appeal to the LEC.

  • But how Council manages those appeals is absolutely within its control. If cases are lost because Council misapplied its own LEP or DCP, or if politically motivated decisions collapse under scrutiny, those costs are self-inflicted.

  • Time and again, matters defended at great expense have been lost or forced into costly conciliation — suggesting they should never have been taken to court.

LEC costs are not automatically unavoidable. Too often, they are the price we pay for poor governance.

Code of Conduct costs

On top of this, $69,080 was spent on Code of Conduct complaints in the past reporting year, even though:

  • 10 complaints were lodged,

  • only 2 reached investigation, and

  • 2 breaches were found (leading to councillor censure).

That is an extraordinary spend for very little outcome.

And the contradiction is glaring: the Mayor has claimed Codes of Conduct are being “weaponised” — yet he himself lodged the complaint that led to a censure later overturned in the Supreme Court, costing the community just over $200,000.

Why this matters

It all beggars belief.

Residents should not need to become forensic accountants to follow the money. When legal spend is this high — and when we keep seeing corrections across legal costs and developer contributions — the only responsible response is radical transparency.

So why isn’t it happening?

  • Why isn’t Kiama Council publishing legal spend by category, with clear totals, every quarter?

  • Why aren’t the Office of Local Government and the Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee (ARIC) demanding answers on the developer contribution overcharge, the double-counting of legal costs, and the “Other Legal” blow-outs?

  • Why is it left to community members to do the oversight work that should already exist?

The bottom line

Transparency in legal and developer-contribution accounting is not optional — it is a core measure of good governance. Until figures are itemised clearly, corrected promptly, independently reviewed, and made public without community pressure, trust in Kiama Council will continue to slip away.

Disclaimer

I am a community member, not a forensic accountant. This post reflects in-depth analysis of Kiama Council reports, combined with concerns raised by community members and councillors. It is a genuine attempt to understand and explain how and why Council’s legal expenses have escalated.

I look forward to Kiama Council’s response.

#KiamaCouncil #Accountability #Transparency #Governance #LegalCosts #CommunityVoice #LocalGovernment

Getting to the Root Cause of the Wicked Problems at Kiama Council

This post is the part of a Follow the Money  series shining a light on Kiama Council’s ongoing failure to even interpret its own spreadsheets.

I am not an accountant. I am a community member, like the majority of our residents, reading the same public reports and trying to understand where our money goes. We should not need a crystal ball to interpret basic financial information. We deserve numbers that make sense.

The last Council agenda included a “quarterly update” on legal costs that, when added together, came to $12 million. Days later, Council issued a media release saying the number was wrong, that the real figure was $2.275 million.

But that is not what the agenda papers said, and not what any reasonable resident would have understood.

And here is the deeper issue:

🙋‍♀️Why did the error have to be picked up by the community?

🙋‍♂️Why was it not identified earlier? Why was it not raised in councillor briefings?

🙋‍♀️Why was it not corrected before the agenda went public?

This goes to the heart of a wicked problem in local government.

The councillor’s impossible workload

Council agendas are released six days before each meeting. Councillors are provided with briefing sessions where they can ask for clarification on complex issues. But how many councillors have the time to attend these sessions? Most have full-time jobs.

And even if they do attend, they face the daunting task of wading through agendas that, once supplementary papers are included, can run to 800 pages or more. How can councillors reasonably be expected to spot errors buried deep in financial tables or misleading cumulative totals?

Why accuracy matters

Councillors can only make sound decisions if they are given timely, accurate, and complete information. When they are forced to second-guess whether the numbers in front of them are right or wrong, they cannot do their jobs effectively.

That responsibility does not lie with councillors. It lies with the executive team. Their role is to ensure the data provided to councillors, and to the public, is clear, concise, and correct.

The wicked problem

This is why the $12 million legal cost debacle matters so much. Not just because the number was wrong, but because it shows how fragile the system is. If councillors cannot trust the information they are given, and if the community has to play watchdog just to keep the books straight, then we do not have transparency. We have a system that is exhausting, confusing, and corrosive to trust.

The financial year before last, Council’s own financial statements showed that 37 percent of all legal costs were grouped into “Other”. With no clear breakdown, ratepayers have no idea what “Other” really means or how that money was spent and when questioned the Council Public Officer refused to answer the question.

Where to from here?

In our next posts, we will dig into specific examples of how these failures in reporting play out:

  • The weaponisation of the Code of Conduct and the hundreds of thousands of dollars wasted as a result.
  • The ballooning of “Other” legal costs and what sits behind them.

Getting to the root of this wicked problem means demanding better.  Councillors, and the community, deserve information they can rely on. Nothing less.

🤑Did you know that for a family of four in Kiama, $576 a year is effectively going straight to Council’s legal bills?

In my next blog, we will unpack what this figure really means, how it compares to other councils, and why residents deserve to know where their money is going.

Stay tuned — because when it comes to Council’s finances, it is time we all started asking tougher questions.

#KiamaCouncil #LegalCosts #Accountability #Transparency #CommunityVoice

When $12 Million Becomes $2 Million, Trust Becomes Zero

This post is the part of a Follow the Money  series shining a light on Kiama Council’s ongoing failure to even interpret its own spreadsheets.

I am not an accountant. I am a community member, like the majority of our residents, reading the same public reports and trying to understand where our money goes. We should not need a crystal ball to interpret basic financial information. We deserve numbers that make sense.

But this isn’t just about numbers. It goes to the heart of governance. Councillors cannot make sound decisions without timely, accurate and complete information.

And it raises a bigger question: are governance bodies such as the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee (ARIC), the Auditor-General, and the Office of Local Government (OLG) fully informed of these matters – particularly in the context of the Performance Improvement Order (PIO)?

🙋‍♀️If they are, why haven’t they intervened?

🤔If they aren’t, then Council’s failures go deeper than poor spreadsheets.

The Legal Fees Debacle

On 19 August 2025, Council tabled its agenda papers showing the following “quarterly update of current legal matters”:

  • June 2024 – $4.50m

  • September 2024 – $5.01m

  • December 2024 – $1.32m

  • March 2025 – $1.20m

Those four quarters alone add up to $12.04 million. That is the figure residents saw in Council’s own agenda papers.

Even when Council later admitted the reporting was wrong , claiming the total legal spend for 2024–25 was just $2.275 million and that earlier figures were “cumulative since 2020”,  the explanation did not stack up.

If the figures were cumulative, they would only ever go up. Instead, they go up and then down again, which looks exactly like quarterly spending, not a rolling total.

But that is not what the agenda papers said, and not what any reasonable community member would have understood.

🙋‍♂️Why wasn’t this identified earlier?

🙋‍♀️Why wasn’t it raised at the council meeting itself?

🤔Why wasn’t it fixed then and there?

We all look forward to these matters being clarified in the next agenda. But in the meantime, councillors, oversight bodies and the community are left making decisions based on faulty information. This is the very opposite of transparency and accountability.

Without corrected figures, councillors, oversight bodies and the community are left making decisions based on faulty information – the very opposite of transparency and accountability.

The Overcharging Fiasco

Lets not forget December 2024.

Council admitted that, between July 2022 and June 2023, around 20 development applications by developers were overcharged a total of $1.5 million under Section 7.11 because of a spreadsheet error.

  • Refunds totalling $625,000 were proposed.

  • Landowners were to be contacted, consents modified, or payments refunded.

  • The overcharges were only identified as part of a later review of Council’s processes.

This is not a minor slip. It is hundreds of thousands of dollars wrongly charged, only corrected after the fact.

The Pattern We Cannot Ignore

Whether it is legal fees or development contributions, the story is the same:

  • Shifting numbers.

  • Confusing explanations, offered only after the community starts asking questions.

  • Major financial consequences for residents and ratepayers.

Transparency is not about cleaning up after the fact. It is about consistent, honest communication in the first place.

Until Council learns how to read and report its own spreadsheets, the community will keep paying the price. And until oversight bodies such as ARIC, the Auditor-General and OLG demand accuracy and accountability, residents will be left wondering: who is really watching over Council, and when will they step in?

#KiamaCouncil #Accountability #Transparency #LegalCosts #PublicMoney #GoodGovernance #Audit #CommunityTrust #Oversight

Lawyers at the Beach !!!!! Why is Kiama Council in Dispute with Gerringong Surf Club?

Yes, you read that correctly Kiama Council is in a formal legal dispute with the Gerringong Surf Life Saving Club — a  volunteer-based organisation that patrols our beaches, trains young lifesavers, and shows up for the community when it matters most.

Council’s own legal report lists the matter as:

“Gerringong SLSC – Licence dispute”
Status: In a meeting held with the club, they confirmed that following advice received from Council, they would withdraw their dispute. To date this hasn’t occurred. Council to follow up.

This post is the part of a Follow the Money  series shining a light on Kiama Council’s ongoing failure to even interpret its own spreadsheets.

I’ve been digging into Kiama Council’s legal expenses and what I’ve found is confusing, frustrating, and frankly concerning.

Why it matters

This is not vague or hypothetical. A community surf club and the local Council are in a formal dispute, with lawyers in the middle. However it unfolded, the fact remains that volunteers and ratepayers are now caught up in a process that should have been solved with better communication and collaboration.

And let’s talk about cost. Council spent more than $12 million on legal matters in 12 months, ( see Item 13.7 Legals Agenda of Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday, 19 August 2025), including nearly $5 million in a single quarter. If that doesn’t tell us it’s time to upgrade our negotiation skills, I don’t know what does. (Maybe TAFE should run a course called How Not to Spend $12 Million on Lawyers.)

What’s at stake

  • The surf club exists to save lives.

  • Council exists to serve the community.

  • Neither should be wasting time and money battling each other.

A Pattern of Escalation

The Gerringong Surf Life Saving Club isn’t the only example.

Council’s legal report also lists:

“KMC v Morgan Lewis – Failure to comply with terms of DA, Fillmore’s Manning Street, Kiama.”
This case went all the way to a contested hearing, with a fine of $3000 recorded. Council spent $88,000 plus to the end of June that only resulted in a $3000 fine.

Yes, rules need to be enforced. But when so many disagreements between Council and the community ends up in front of lawyers, something’s broken.

Instead of being solved across a desk, these matters are being fought across a courtroom.

And that’s how we end up with Council spending more than $12 million on legal matters in 12 months. 

Disputes can happen. But when they escalate into legal wrangling rather than being solved face to face, the community loses twice, first in trust, and then in money.

It’s time to get serious about collaboration. Because if we can’t negotiate with our lifesavers, what hope do we have on bigger challenges?

See previous post “No lease, no answers. What is Kiama Council hiding?” for backstory

#KiamaCouncil #Gerringong #SurfLifeSaving #CommunityFirst #Accountability #Collaboration #GoodGovernance #LegalCosts #Negotiation #CivicLeadership

Why I’ve Become an Advocate for Shining a Light on Abuse of Power

What hill are you standing on for your community?

I didn’t set out to become “that person” who keeps calling out the wrongs. But over time, I’ve seen too many examples of how silence enables harm. Whether it’s in local government, community organisations, or the workplace, abuse of power doesn’t arrive with a fanfare. It seeps in quietly. It hides in closed-door decisions, half-truths, and carefully managed narratives.

At first, it’s tempting to tell yourself it’s not worth the trouble. That someone else will speak up. That surely, if the problem was as bad as it looks, the system would correct itself. But time after time, I’ve seen the opposite. The people with the courage to speak are often punished, while those in positions of power close ranks.

I’ve also learned that abuse of power is rarely a single, dramatic event. More often, it’s a pattern of behaviour: bending rules for friends, silencing critics, hiding information the public has a right to know. It’s intimidation dressed up as “process,” and retaliation disguised as “policy.” And while these tactics might be effective in the short term, they corrode trust and weaken the very institutions they claim to protect.

My decision to speak out comes down to this: silence isn’t neutral. It’s a choice that helps the powerful, not the vulnerable. By shining a light on these behaviours, I’m defending the principle that power should serve the public good, not personal interest.

It’s uncomfortable work. It can make you a target. But it also builds solidarity. I’ve met others who share this belief that truth-telling is worth the cost. Together, we’re creating a record. We’re showing that people are paying attention. We’re reminding those in power that their actions matter, and that accountability is not optional.

Abuse of power thrives in the dark. My job, as I see it now, is to make sure the light stays on.

#CommunityAdvocacy #StandForChange #AbuseOfPower #SpeakUp #LocalLeadership #CivicCourage #CommunityMatters #AccountabilityNow #DefendDemocracy #TogetherWeRise

How a 2000 Fix for One MP Is Now Protecting Gareth Ward from Expulsion

In recent weeks, many people have asked why the NSW Constitution allows a convicted Member of Parliament to stay in office while they appeal their case. The short answer is: because of a law change in the year 2000.

And here’s the story behind it.

The change was triggered by the case of Phillip Smiles, a former NSW Liberal MP and Assistant Treasurer who was convicted of tax evasion in the 1990s. Smiles resigned from Parliament after being found guilty of falsely claiming his nanny as a tax deduction. But on appeal, his conviction was overturned.

By the time that happened, his political career was over. His seat had been vacated. A by-election had been held. And he had lost his pension and entitlements.

That outcome caused a major stir. It felt unfair, both to Smiles, who had been legally cleared, and to his electorate, which had lost its elected representative over a conviction that didn’t stick.

The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) looked into the case and found no evidence of corruption, but did highlight a serious problem: the law wasn’t clear on what exactly “conviction” meant under section 13A of the Constitution Act. Was it the jury verdict? Was it after sentencing? Or did it only count once all appeals were exhausted?

ICAC and a Parliamentary Committee both recommended change. They called for a clearer, more precise definition that would protect MPs and voters from being punished for convictions that might not stand.

So in 2000, the NSW Government amended the Constitution. The change meant that a conviction would only count, for the purpose of disqualifying an MP, once the appeals process had concluded. This would stop someone from being wrongly removed if their conviction was later overturned.

It was, at the time, seen as a fix. A safeguard against what happened to Phillip Smiles.

But now we are seeing the downside.

Because of that 2000 amendment, a person found guilty of serious criminal offences, remanded in custody, and serving time in jail, can still hold office, draw a salary, and access entitlements, all while appealing their case.

It’s a loophole that was meant to protect fairness. But now, it’s protecting power.

And that’s why so many of us are calling for reform again. It’s time to respect the original intent of the law, to preserve justice, while ensuring Parliament isn’t held hostage by someone who has been convicted of serious crimes and remanded in custody.

The law was changed for good reasons. But the unintended consequences now demand action.

Further Reading

You can download and review the official “Constitution Amendment Bill 2000 — Explanatory Note” for the Constitution Amendment Bill 2000, which clearly outlines the reasons for the change and how it redefined “conviction” in the Constitution

 Why Gareth Ward’s challenge to the power to expel him from the NSW parliament failed

#NSWPolitics #ConstitutionReform #PhillipSmilesCase #Section13A #PublicAccountability #DemocracyMatters #AppealLoophole #IntegrityInOffice #DisqualificationDelay

Gareth Ward Wants Taxpayers to Fund His Appeal – This Is Unconscionable Conduct

Lawyers for convicted rapist MP Gareth Ward have sought an injunction to stop him being expelled from Parliament.

As a result, he remains, for now,  the sitting Member for Kiama, while held in custody at Silverwater Jail.

This is not a technicality. This is not a procedural hiccup. This is unconscionable conduct.

A man convicted of serious sexual offences should not be representing any community from behind bars. And yet, here we are.

Let’s be honest about what’s happening. I do not believe Gareth Ward is doing this because he thinks he can carry out the duties of a Member of Parliament from a maximum-security prison. I believe his entire reason for holding on to his seat is so that he can access public funding to cover the cost of his appeal.

It is about protecting his entitlements. It is about staying on the payroll. It is about using the system, not serving the people.

If I am wrong, then let him explain how he plans to do the job. Let him show us how he will meet with constituents, attend community events, vote in Parliament, and represent the people of Kiama, all while being held in custody.

There’s a name for what we’re seeing. It’s a kind of dissociative denial. The ability to disconnect from what you’ve done and still see yourself as the victim. Gareth Ward has been convicted of serious crimes, and yet he’s fighting to stay in Parliament. Not to represent his community, but to preserve his power and entitlements. That isn’t leadership. It’s delusion.

This situation should not be up for debate. It should not require legal games or political hesitation. A man who has been found guilty of sexual violence should not be sitting in Parliament , whether or not he plans to appeal. Being in jail and being in Parliament are not compatible roles.

The people of Kiama deserve representation. Real representation. Not a legal fiction.

 This is about the integrity of our institutions. It is about the message we send when we allow someone convicted of predatory crimes to retain a position of power, status, and influence.

Gareth Ward cannot represent this community from gaol.

And the fact that he is trying to do so should be a wake-up call to every voter, every politician, and every journalist watching this unfold.

It is time for Parliament to act.

#GarethWard #NSWPolitics #UnconscionableConduct #PublicAccountability #JusticeAndIntegrity #MPInCustody #NoRepresentationFromJail #TaxpayerMoneyMatters #KiamaDeservesBetter

For Kiama Council logic appears to have left the room

As a writer who covers CIVICS and a local resident, I’ve been asking questions about Kiama Council’s approach to community engagement, especially when residents offer practical solutions and receive polite obstruction in return.

Last week, I wrote a blog highlighting two examples. Both were factual, and supported by publicly available correspondence between Council and a local advocacy group. The blog asked a simple question: why does it feel like some responses are more about ending conversations than opening them?

Apparently, it resonated so much that I’ve now received a formal request from Council asking me to remove the blog’s links to two staff emails. Emails sent to a local community group raising infrastructure and safety concerns on behalf of residents.

In other words, Council has responded to a blog about shutting down dialogue… by asking me to shut down the dialogue.

Let that settle in.

It’s hard not to be struck by the irony. If your first instinct is to send a takedown request in response to a piece about bureaucratic defensiveness, you’re not disproving the point. You’re living it.

I’m not sharing confidential HR matters. I’m not making personal attacks. I’m quoting Council’s own words – words sent to community members seeking answers.

So what’s the problem?

Transparency is not a threat.
It’s a responsibility.

The deeper concern is not the legal letter, it’s what the letter reveals. A culture more concerned with narrative control than community collaboration. A pattern where criticism is met not with curiosity, but with consequence.

You’d think someone would pause and say, ‘Hang on… does sending this legal letter prove their point?’ But that’s the problem. When power becomes about protecting ego, not serving people, logic leaves the room. And fear takes the pen.

That’s not how trust is built.
It’s how it’s broken.

The emails in question were sent to an advocacy group representing residents. They are part of a public conversation about public infrastructure. That Council is now reading and responding to these blogs is encouraging.

But if that response is to silence instead of engage, it raises a bigger question:

What kind of leadership sees transparency as a problem to be managed?

This isn’t about one person or one decision. It’s about the choices we all make when we’re in a position of influence.

 

To the Councillors and staff reading this:

You don’t need to agree with every word I write. But you do have a choice about how you respond.

You can react with fear.
Or you can reflect with courage.

You can defend the optics.
Or you can start fixing the culture.

The door remains open. Not because I’m obliged to hold it, but because I believe in the community on the other side.

BTW Great article by Peter Hartcher

Narrative is all – Democracy, they believe, dies amid induced dementia.

#KiamaCouncil #LocalDemocracy #CivicCourage #AccountabilityMatters #TransparencyNow #CouncilWatch #FreeSpeech #CommunityVoice #PublicParticipation #StandUpSpeakOut

Kiama Council Reads the Blog… and Sends a Warning Letter

After publishing my recent blog post about Kiama Council’s handling of community-raised concerns, the following is part of an email I received  from Council’s Public Officer. It relates to the inclusion of links to two Council emails. One from the Director of Infrastructure and Operations, the other from the Acting Manager of Engineering and Technical Services. Both responding to the Jamberoo Valley Ratepayers and Residents Association.

“The unauthorised publication of these emails constitutes a breach of copyright. Further, these emails were not addressed to you and Council has not authorised the publication of them on your blog. The original recipients of the emails, the Jamberoo Valley Ratepayers and Residents Association, have also been placed on notice.”

“Accordingly, you are requested to immediately remove the published emails in full from all public and private facing platforms and notify me once this has occurred. In addition, please confirm you will not publish, quote or otherwise distribute any Council email, or part thereof, without obtaining prior written consent. Failure to comply with this request may result in legal action.”

There are many things I could say in response. But let’s start with this:

These emails were sent in response to public concerns, to a community advocacy group, about public infrastructure.

They were shared with the community in good faith, as part of a transparent effort to keep residents informed about the issues affecting our community. It is standard practice for organisations like JVRRA to share “correspondence in and out” with their members. That includes responses from Council.

It is not private. It is not confidential. And it is not a breach of copyright.

What it is, frankly, is overreach and and a telling one.

Council’s objection appears to be more about controlling public narrative. And in that context, the threat of “legal action” reads like a small-town SLAPP  – a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation,  where the goal is not to win, but to silence.

This is what abuse of power looks like.
This is why unions matter.
Because to hold power to account, you need powerful supporters.
Not because you’re weak – but because they expect you to be alone.

And yes. As you would expect from any formal reply to a residents’ group, the names and contact information of the staff responding were included in their email signatures, the same contact details publicly available on the Kiama Council website.

Their inclusion does not render the correspondence confidential. If anything, it reinforces that these were professional communications, sent in an official capacity, on matters of public interest.

My response to Council is this:

Thank you for reading the blog. I hope it marks the beginning of more open, engaged, and respectful communication between Council and the communities it serves.

But I will not be removing the links.
I will not be retracting the quotes.
And I will not be intimidated into silence.

Because transparency is not the problem here.
The problem is a system that seems to find public scrutiny more threatening than poor process.

 The attempt to suppress, intimidate, or discredit those who ask legitimate questions is part of a broader pattern that needs to be called out. If a council is confident in its processes and decisions, it should welcome scrutiny, not fear it. I won’t be stepping back into silence, and I’m not alone. Every time one person speaks up, others find the courage to do the same. That’s how change begins.

📝 Footnote:

If you’re new here, welcome. What you’ve just read is not an isolated incident, it’s part of a broader pattern.

This Council has demonstrated time and again how far it is willing to go to silence dissent. From formal complaints against journalists, takedown demands, and Press Council,  ICAC and Code of Conduct referrals  to copyright threats and legal warnings over publicly shared emails, the message is clear: scrutiny is not welcome.

But here’s the thing. Communities don’t function when only the quiet voices are tolerated. Local democracy relies on people asking questions, challenging power, and expecting answers, not repercussions.

You don’t have to stand for Council to stand up. You don’t have to publish a blog to care about how decisions are made. And you don’t have to accept a culture of intimidation dressed up as process.

The deeper question isn’t how much pressure one person can withstand. It’s how much silence a community is willing to accept.

#LocalDemocracy #CivicCourage #CommunityAdvocacy #SLAPPResistance #PressFreedom #TransparencyMatters #CouncilAccountability #PublicInterestJournalism #DemocracyInAction #PowerOfMany