City of Melbourne to fund Sustainability Junket

The City of Melbourne is to fork out over $360,000 to fly-in participants for a “sustainability conference” that many see as a environmental junket generating excessive carbon pollution to facilitate enviro-bureaucrats in the life style they have become accustomed to, with Ratepayers left to foot the bill.

Questions are being asked with today’s Internet technology why the 3 day enviro-fest could not be held on line with less pollution and cost to Melbourne taxpayers.

City of Melbourne to fund Sustainability Junket

The City of Melbourne is to fork out over $360,000 to fly-in participants for a “sustainability conference” that many see as a environmental junket generating excessive carbon pollution to facilitate enviro-bureaucrats in the life style they have become accustomed to, with Ratepayers left to foot the bill.

Questions are being asked with today’s Internet technology why the 3 day enviro-fest could not be held on line with less pollution and cost to Melbourne taxpayers.

Direct Election of Lord Mayor under review

MELBOURNE ratepayers would no longer be able to elect their lord mayor under a controversial proposal to return the power to elected city councillors.

Herald Sun

A motion will be brought before Melbourne City Council tonight on whether to ask the State Government to consider abolishing the direct election of the mayor and deputy.

Council sources say if the change were put to the State Government and enacted, it could weaken Lord Mayor Robert Doyle’s chance at another term in office.

Critics of council’s current voting system claim that candidates with a high public profile and financial support are more likely to win direct elections, and not necessarily the best candidate.

The direct election of the lord mayor by ratepayers has been in place since John So won office in 2001.

There has been no review of the system since then.

The State Government passed legislation last week for the City of Melbourne to have regular electoral representation reviews conducted by the Victorian Electoral Commission.

That legislation was requested by council.

The motion before the Future Melbourne committee, meeting tonight, calls for public consultation over whether people would be required to vote in person, bringing local government elections in line with state and federal practices.

A second motion also brought by Councillor Jacqui Watts calls for the State Government to consider matters including:

ABOLITION of the direct election of the lord mayor and/or deputy lord mayor.

INCREASING requirements of election funding and disclosure provisions.

ABOLITION of deeming provisions and amendment to the company nominee provisions.

Both motions will be voted on tonight.

Minister for Local Government Jeanette Powell said the electoral representation reviews gave the local community the chance to influence their council’s electoral structure.

“Local government is the level of government closest to the people and this Bill increases the opportunity for the community to have more input,” she said

UPDATE: The City Council has voted against the proposal to hold a public inquiry and review of the City of Melbourne’s electoral system. Whislt The Lord Mayor wants to prevent the public from reviewing his position this should not prevent the State Government from proceeding and providing opportunity for public review.

Direct Election of Lord Mayor under review

MELBOURNE ratepayers would no longer be able to elect their lord mayor under a controversial proposal to return the power to elected city councillors.

Herald Sun

A motion will be brought before Melbourne City Council tonight on whether to ask the State Government to consider abolishing the direct election of the mayor and deputy.

Council sources say if the change were put to the State Government and enacted, it could weaken Lord Mayor Robert Doyle’s chance at another term in office.

Critics of council’s current voting system claim that candidates with a high public profile and financial support are more likely to win direct elections, and not necessarily the best candidate.

The direct election of the lord mayor by ratepayers has been in place since John So won office in 2001.

There has been no review of the system since then.

The State Government passed legislation last week for the City of Melbourne to have regular electoral representation reviews conducted by the Victorian Electoral Commission.

That legislation was requested by council.

The motion before the Future Melbourne committee, meeting tonight, calls for public consultation over whether people would be required to vote in person, bringing local government elections in line with state and federal practices.

A second motion also brought by Councillor Jacqui Watts calls for the State Government to consider matters including:

ABOLITION of the direct election of the lord mayor and/or deputy lord mayor.

INCREASING requirements of election funding and disclosure provisions.

ABOLITION of deeming provisions and amendment to the company nominee provisions.

Both motions will be voted on tonight.

Minister for Local Government Jeanette Powell said the electoral representation reviews gave the local community the chance to influence their council’s electoral structure.

“Local government is the level of government closest to the people and this Bill increases the opportunity for the community to have more input,” she said

UPDATE: The City Council has voted against the proposal to hold a public inquiry and review of the City of Melbourne’s electoral system. Whislt The Lord Mayor wants to prevent the public from reviewing his position this should not prevent the State Government from proceeding and providing opportunity for public review.

Direct Election of Lord Mayor under review

MELBOURNE ratepayers would no longer be able to elect their lord mayor under a controversial proposal to return the power to elected city councillors.

Herald Sun

A motion will be brought before Melbourne City Council tonight on whether to ask the State Government to consider abolishing the direct election of the mayor and deputy.

Council sources say if the change were put to the State Government and enacted, it could weaken Lord Mayor Robert Doyle’s chance at another term in office.

Critics of council’s current voting system claim that candidates with a high public profile and financial support are more likely to win direct elections, and not necessarily the best candidate.

The direct election of the lord mayor by ratepayers has been in place since John So won office in 2001.

There has been no review of the system since then.

The State Government passed legislation last week for the City of Melbourne to have regular electoral representation reviews conducted by the Victorian Electoral Commission.

That legislation was requested by council.

The motion before the Future Melbourne committee, meeting tonight, calls for public consultation over whether people would be required to vote in person, bringing local government elections in line with state and federal practices.

A second motion also brought by Councillor Jacqui Watts calls for the State Government to consider matters including:

ABOLITION of the direct election of the lord mayor and/or deputy lord mayor.

INCREASING requirements of election funding and disclosure provisions.

ABOLITION of deeming provisions and amendment to the company nominee provisions.

Both motions will be voted on tonight.

Minister for Local Government Jeanette Powell said the electoral representation reviews gave the local community the chance to influence their council’s electoral structure.

“Local government is the level of government closest to the people and this Bill increases the opportunity for the community to have more input,” she said

UPDATE: The City Council has voted against the proposal to hold a public inquiry and review of the City of Melbourne’s electoral system. Whislt The Lord Mayor wants to prevent the public from reviewing his position this should not prevent the State Government from proceeding and providing opportunity for public review.

SCAM WARNING: TecSavy Skype (03) 9016 4321

We recently purchased on line telephone number (03) 9016 4321 from SKYPE we thought it was a good number but it turned out to be a nightmare .

The number was previously registered with a group called TecSavy based in the USA (Although we have reason to believe it is in fact based in India or some other overseas country) They offer too good to refuse computer support services for a subscription of $100. If you subscribe they install software on your computer so their technicians can assist in any configuration issues. They also have your credit card number and other personal data that you provide when you subscribe.

TecSavy’s US telephone number is +1.425.998.0460, When we called this number we received a recorded message by the US authorities warning subscribers not to provide any personal details or credit card information as the company my be associated with identity theft.

All emails sent to this company are also bounced.

We have reported this matter to the authorities and telecommunications provider.

If you are contacted by a company by this name or using (03) 9016 4321 as their Australian contact try and get hold of any contact information you can and report it to the police.

UPDATE: We did a DNS Internet provider search on TechSavy and the web of deceit became even clearer. They uses the services of a group called privacyprotect.org to mask the ownership of the web site. The addresses they used was listed as a Post Box in Queensland with a message that they do not receive any mail at that address (Why would you have a PO box and not receive any mail?) The telephone contact was in Denmark and the fax line in India. we called then Denmark number and we got a recorded message from a woman with an Indian Accent. It turns out that at every step there was false and misleading ICAN records. This is something that ICAN must look into as we soon discovered that http://Privacyprotect.org is used by a hots of doggy web sites to mark the owner of the web. We suspect in fact that TecSavy and privacyprotect are one and the same company. They certainly use the same server.

Update 2: Mirosoft published warning to users of fake engineers scam

Microsoft is warning its customers of a new scam that employs “criminals posing as computer security engineers and calling people at home to tell them they are at risk of a computer security threat.”

The tech giant said that victims of the scam lose on average $875 after “the scammers tell their victims they are providing free security checks and add authenticity by claiming to represent legitimate companies and using telephone directories to refer to their victims by name.

Funds are stolen by the scammers using “a range of deception techniques designed to steal money,” Microsoft said in a statement detailing the scam.

SCAM WARNING: TecSavy Skype (03) 9016 4321

We recently purchased on line telephone number (03) 9016 4321 from SKYPE we thought it was a good number but it turned out to be a nightmare .

The number was previously registered with a group called TecSavy based in the USA (Although we have reason to believe it is in fact based in India or some other overseas country) They offer too good to refuse computer support services for a subscription of $100. If you subscribe they install software on your computer so their technicians can assist in any configuration issues. They also have your credit card number and other personal data that you provide when you subscribe.

TecSavy’s US telephone number is +1.425.998.0460, When we called this number we received a recorded message by the US authorities warning subscribers not to provide any personal details or credit card information as the company my be associated with identity theft.

All emails sent to this company are also bounced.

We have reported this matter to the authorities and telecommunications provider.

If you are contacted by a company by this name or using (03) 9016 4321 as their Australian contact try and get hold of any contact information you can and report it to the police.

UPDATE: We did a DNS Internet provider search on TechSavy and the web of deceit became even clearer. They uses the services of a group called privacyprotect.org to mask the ownership of the web site. The addresses they used was listed as a Post Box in Queensland with a message that they do not receive any mail at that address (Why would you have a PO box and not receive any mail?) The telephone contact was in Denmark and the fax line in India. we called then Denmark number and we got a recorded message from a woman with an Indian Accent. It turns out that at every step there was false and misleading ICAN records. This is something that ICAN must look into as we soon discovered that http://Privacyprotect.org is used by a hots of doggy web sites to mark the owner of the web. We suspect in fact that TecSavy and privacyprotect are one and the same company. They certainly use the same server.

Update 2: Mirosoft published warning to users of fake engineers scam

Microsoft is warning its customers of a new scam that employs “criminals posing as computer security engineers and calling people at home to tell them they are at risk of a computer security threat.”

The tech giant said that victims of the scam lose on average $875 after “the scammers tell their victims they are providing free security checks and add authenticity by claiming to represent legitimate companies and using telephone directories to refer to their victims by name.

Funds are stolen by the scammers using “a range of deception techniques designed to steal money,” Microsoft said in a statement detailing the scam.

SCAM WARNING: TecSavy Skype (03) 9016 4321

We recently purchased on line telephone number (03) 9016 4321 from SKYPE we thought it was a good number but it turned out to be a nightmare .

The number was previously registered with a group called TecSavy based in the USA (Although we have reason to believe it is in fact based in India or some other overseas country) They offer too good to refuse computer support services for a subscription of $100. If you subscribe they install software on your computer so their technicians can assist in any configuration issues. They also have your credit card number and other personal data that you provide when you subscribe.

TecSavy’s US telephone number is +1.425.998.0460, When we called this number we received a recorded message by the US authorities warning subscribers not to provide any personal details or credit card information as the company my be associated with identity theft.

All emails sent to this company are also bounced.

We have reported this matter to the authorities and telecommunications provider.

If you are contacted by a company by this name or using (03) 9016 4321 as their Australian contact try and get hold of any contact information you can and report it to the police.

UPDATE: We did a DNS Internet provider search on TechSavy and the web of deceit became even clearer. They uses the services of a group called privacyprotect.org to mask the ownership of the web site. The addresses they used was listed as a Post Box in Queensland with a message that they do not receive any mail at that address (Why would you have a PO box and not receive any mail?) The telephone contact was in Denmark and the fax line in India. we called then Denmark number and we got a recorded message from a woman with an Indian Accent. It turns out that at every step there was false and misleading ICAN records. This is something that ICAN must look into as we soon discovered that http://Privacyprotect.org is used by a hots of doggy web sites to mark the owner of the web. We suspect in fact that TecSavy and privacyprotect are one and the same company. They certainly use the same server.

Update 2: Mirosoft published warning to users of fake engineers scam

Microsoft is warning its customers of a new scam that employs “criminals posing as computer security engineers and calling people at home to tell them they are at risk of a computer security threat.”

The tech giant said that victims of the scam lose on average $875 after “the scammers tell their victims they are providing free security checks and add authenticity by claiming to represent legitimate companies and using telephone directories to refer to their victims by name.

Funds are stolen by the scammers using “a range of deception techniques designed to steal money,” Microsoft said in a statement detailing the scam.