Behind the Byline Archives - Page 5 of 9 - Clover Hill Diaries

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

From Bare Floors to Barely Affording. Why Getting Rich in 1870 Was Easier Than Buying a House Today”

In 1870, the Kiama Independent ran a piece titled How to Get Rich. The advice was breathtakingly simple:

Work hard. Spend less than you earn. Save a few hundred pounds. Buy a small farm on the edge of town. Build a modest house. Marry a prudent woman (the sexism was free). Live happily ever after.

And the best part? Don’t worry about furniture. As the newspaper sternly advised, “If the average colonist can have a carpet and fine furniture without taking another man’s money to pay for them, let him have them. But if he cannot afford it, bare floors will not hurt honest men’s feet.”

In other words: buy the farm first, worry about the carpet later.

And here’s the thing, it wasn’t a joke. Back then, this advice actually worked. You could slog for a few years and end up with a farm. Land ownership was within reach of an ordinary labourer.

Fast forward to 2025, and you’d be laughed out of the bank for suggesting such a thing. Today’s version of How to Get Rich might read something like this:

Work hard. Spend less than you earn (if that’s even possible). Save for a decade while rents chew through a third of your income. Watch house prices climb faster than your wages. Cry into your smashed avo (because it wasn’t the avocado that broke the bank). Apply for a mortgage that will consume 50% of your household income. Repeat until retirement.

Here are the hard numbers:

The house-price-to-income ratio in Australia now sits at about 8 times annual income (9.5 times if you’re in Sydney, 10-12 times if you live in Kiama). In 1870, it was closer to 1:1.
It takes the average household more than 10 years just to save a deposit—and that’s without the market leaping ahead while you save.
If you’re lucky enough to secure a mortgage, expect half your income to vanish into loan repayments. If you’re renting, a third of your income disappears into someone else’s mortgage.

In short: in 1879 “getting rich” meant a few years of thrift and sweat, and you could end up with your own patch of dirt. Today, thrift and sweat mostly buy you the right to complain about real estate agents and doom scroll Domain listings at midnight.

The truth is, our ancestors may have lived with bare floors, but at least they could afford the walls around them. Carpets were optional. Houses weren’t.

#HousingCrisis #CostOfLiving #KiamaHistory #ThenAndNow #BareFloors #HomeOwnership #AustralianDream #LocalHistory #RealEstateReality

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

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

Kiama’s All-Women By-Election: Let’s Talk Ideas, Not Insults

The 13 September Kiama by-election is a milestone in more ways than one. For the first time, every candidate is a woman: Kate Dezarnaulds (Independent), Tonia Gray (Greens), Katelin McInerney (Labor), and Serena Copley (Liberal). Between them, they bring decades of professional, community, and political experience, and, I hope, a willingness to run campaigns focused on what they will do for the community, rather than tearing each other down.

Kate Dezarnaulds – Independent

Berry-based businesswoman and community advocate Kate is running on a platform of independent leadership free from party agendas. Her focus is on:

Affordable housing – promoting build-to-rent models to ease rental pressures and improve housing availability.
Healthcare access – better local health services and specialist care.
Climate action – strong environmental protections and disaster preparedness.
Infrastructure and transparency – advocating for infrastructure that supports sustainable growth and more open local decision-making.

Tonia Gray – Greens

Tonia, also from Berry, is a former Shoalhaven councillor and educator who champions:

Climate justice – a rapid shift to renewables, ideally under public ownership.
Public services – increased funding for hospitals, schools, housing, and public transport.
Environmental protection – safeguarding farmland, ecosystems, and supporting agritourism.
Political integrity – ending “dirty donations” and embedding transparency, alongside meaningful work with First Nations communities.

Katelin McInerney – Labor

When Premier Chris Minns announced Katelin’s candidacy, he described her as “very kind” and having “a big heart.” While kindness is valuable in politics, it’s hard to imagine a male colleague being introduced in quite the same terms. Katelin is returning for a second tilt at the seat after losing to Gareth Ward in 2023. Her platform includes:

Housing and cost of living – boosting housing supply, supporting renters, and maintaining local cost-of-living relief measures.
Health and education – strengthening public health services in Kiama and improving access to specialist care; investment in schools and training pathways.
Transport and infrastructure – improving rail reliability and road safety upgrades.
Community engagement – respectful, community-first representation that prioritises listening to constituents.

Serena Copley – Liberal

Shoalhaven local and former councillor Serena is framing the by-election as a verdict on Labor’s record, asking voters if they feel better off after two years under the current government. She is campaigning for:

Infrastructure investment – building on the Liberals’ delivery of Kiama’s ambulance station, integrated health centre, and major hospital redevelopments; pushing for faster project delivery.
Cost-of-living relief – restoring Active Kids and Back to School vouchers, reinstating the Seniors Regional Travel Card.
Transport and health – reversing what she describes as Labor’s cuts to health funding, making train services faster and more reliable.
Economic management – strong fiscal discipline to support local jobs and maintain the South Coast’s lifestyle.

Why This Race Matters

This by-election is a rare chance for Kiama voters to compare four distinct visions for the region’s future. The choice is not just about personalities but about values, whether we want leadership that puts community before party, accelerates climate and housing reforms, doubles down on public service delivery, or promises a return to a more traditional infrastructure-first agenda.

The Premier’s framing of Katelin’s candidacy and Serena’s sharp critique of Labor both hint at the tone of the campaign ahead. My hope is that the focus stays on ideas, not insults. Kiama deserves candidates who will make their case on substance, vision, and respect for the people they seek to represent.

#KiamaByElection2025 #KateDezarnaulds #ToniaGray
#KatelinMcInerney #SerenaCopley #KiamaVotes
#WomenInPolitics #CommunityFirst

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.

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

You Don’t Have to Stand for Council to Stand Up

Someone recently commented on one of my posts, suggesting that if I’m going to be critical of Council, I should “stand for Council”.

It’s a common reflex and I get it. This post explains why that line of thinking doesn’t land with me.

Firstly, informed criticism is part of civic life. It’s how systems improve. It’s how communities stay engaged. It’s how people know they’re not alone when they have concerns.

I’ve spent time reporting on Kiama Council and local government. I’ve done the policy reading, watched the meetings, interviewed councillors, and watched how bureaucracy works and sadly too often it doesn’t. That experience matters. So does yours.

In Jamberoo we already have a councillor who represents our community and advocates for us at every turn. They don’t need to carry the burden alone. What they need is a community that has their back. A community that speaks up, stays informed, and lets Council know that when our representative lobbies for us, it’s because they’re listening to us.

Not everyone needs to sit behind the Council desk. Some of us are researchers. Writers. Listeners. Connectors. Watchdogs. Builders. Carers. The strength of a community lies in its diverse roles, not a single title.

This is what real democracy looks like, not just voting once every few years, but showing up in between. It’s not urban rage. It’s urban democracy. And it’s not about shouting the loudest, it’s about feeling confident that your voice matters.

And here’s the truth: when people are shut down, told they’re too negative, too vocal, too persistent, what they’re often being told is that their discomfort makes power uncomfortable. That’s not a reason to stop. That’s a reason to keep going.

I wont be standing for Council. I am and always will stand for community.
And I’m standing with everyone else who knows that the health of a local democracy depends on all of us using the tools we have, to speak, to share, to question, to care.

#UrbanDemocracy #CivicVoice #LocalLeadership #CommunityMatters #ParticipatoryDemocracy #SpeakUpKiama #AccountableCouncil #PowerOfThePeople #DemocracyBetweenElections #CollaborativeChange

For Jamberoo Residents, Kiama Council Gaslighting Continues

As a member of the Jamberoo Valley Ratepayers and Residents Association, I recently read two pieces of correspondence from Kiama Council that left me flabbergasted.

In both cases, residents offered practical, low-cost solutions to very real local problems. One involved flooding. The other raised safety concerns about a proposed cycleway extension. Both ideas were constructive. Both could have sparked a genuine Council–community partnership.

Instead, they ran headlong into that familiar force, a masterclass in bureaucratic deflection.

You can read the full exchange for yourself here and here.

Here’s the short version:

Residents offered helpful suggestions.
Council replied with historical references, legal limitations, and a general tone of “nothing to see here.”
No invitation to meet. No curiosity. No sense of shared purpose.

The pattern is clear

Raise a concern, offer a solution, and Council will reply with:

A plan from 2005
A rule they’ve decided is immovable
And a warning that any change might require redoing a flawed $200,000 design

All of it technically accurate. None of it helpful.

It was a masterclass in how to appear responsive while ensuring nothing changes, a reply carefully worded to close down the conversation and leave Jamberoo residents seething.

Lest we forget, this is the same Council that already left Jamberoo with a $970,000 shortfall in infrastructure funding.

How hard is it to write a response like this?

“Thanks for raising this. It’s clear you’ve thought it through. While there are some process and legal considerations, we’d be happy to meet, look at the specifics, and explore whether a collaborative approach might be possible.”

Not revolutionary. Just reasonable.

We can do better

It makes you seriously wonder what direction staff are getting from the top. Because this isn’t about policy. It’s about showing up with a willingness to listen, to think, and to work alongside the people you serve.

It takes no courage to quote the rulebook. It takes courage to say, “You might be right. Let’s find a way.”

When thoughtful, constructive ideas are met with polite obstruction, something deeper is lost. Not just confidence in the process — but faith that the process was ever meant to serve the community at all.

The rules are not the issue. The absence of imagination is. The absence of leadership is.

And that, unlike drainage or bike paths, is not so easily fixed with a shovel or a line on a map.
It takes people willing to say, We can do better. Let’s begin.

Update

After publishing this post, I received a formal request from Kiama Council asking me to remove links to two emails sent by Council staff in response to community advocacy.

To clarify: those emails were sent to a local advocacy organisation. They relate to infrastructure and safety concerns raised on behalf of residents.

It is accepted practice to assume that Council’s correspondence would be shared with the people affected. That’s how transparency works. It’s also how democracy works.

Council’s objections appear less about privacy and more about controlling the narrative. In that sense, the complaint reads like a local-government-scale SLAPP – a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation – intended to intimidate rather than inform.

I have declined their request.

That Council is now reading the blog is encouraging. May it be the beginning of more open dialogue, not the end of it.

FYI for other advocacy groups:

Council cannot claim privacy or confidentiality while engaging in correspondence with a publicly transparent group.
Their email responses are part of a public conversation, not a private one.
Attempting to restrict further distribution is a retrospective attempt to control optics, not a legitimate legal position.

#KiamaCouncil #LocalGovernment #Jamberoo #CommunityVoices #CivicLeadership #BureaucraticFailure #CouncilAccountability #PublicEngagement #InfrastructureMatters #WeCanDoBetter

Category: Behind the Byline