I’m not a fan of articles like this. There’s so little detail on why the proposal was knocked back. It’s impossible to know, by the end of the article, whether it was a good or poor action by the committee.
Anybody got the inside scoop?
I’m not a fan of articles like this. There’s so little detail on why the proposal was knocked back. It’s impossible to know, by the end of the article, whether it was a good or poor action by the committee.
Anybody got the inside scoop?
Article very light on the actual details. For all we know it could have been like this:
Requirements: “Please provide a detailed description for the intended purpose of the funds. Include plans, quotes for materials / labour for each item the funding will go towards, and the benefits this grant will provide for the local community”.
Volunteer firies : “givvus 50 grand to help us build a shed for the fire truck, ay?”
Committee: “??? Sorry this does not meet submission requirements.”
Firies: “OMG literally death by bureaucracy.”
Ha! Exactly! ABC really hit a home run on this one
My guess given the comments about the other brigades in the shire is that using money to better provision the other brigades was considered a better use of funds than having an additional station. There are a lot of factors to balance in allocating funding, and spending the money to build a station to house a fire truck in that location might mean they end up with one less actual fire truck overall in the region.