This Is Barry Williams Version of Events Regarding MAACS

Barry Williams still telling BIG PORKIES. Our comments in red.


Supporting services - the story of MAACS, and activities by Government Departments

The Mens’ Accommodation and Crisis Service (MAACS), run by the LFA ACT, was
established by Minister Stefaniak in the ACT in March 1999.
MAACS was designed to provide emergency accommodation and support to fathers, and in many cases also their children, left homeless as a result of domestic discord. (But you got Stefaniak to tell the Government enquiry that you had helped 60 men and 100 children?)
MAACS was the first service of its kind in Australia. (Yeah if ripping off the Australian taxpayer on the fruadulent misrepresentation of Domestic Violence is a first then you can have the accolade.) The LFA had been lobbying for this service for 20 years. It was established against strong opposition from the ACT Domestic Violence Crisis Service (DVCS), which has an avowedly “feminist” charter. (You mean it's "feminist" because it helps women and you say that like it's a bad thing to help women and yet here you are saying you're setting up the same service for men and yet if you do it, it should be considered something to brag about?) MAACS received ongoing funding of $100,000 per annum (yes and the rest) , compared with an average of$400,000 per annum per refuge for women’s refuges. (you know yourself that that figure isn't true and that all the refuges received the same $100,000 but that doesn't sound as good when you're whining does it?)
The LFA, during its three-year tenure in running MAACS, filled an increasing part of
the yawning gap in current practice in the ACT in relation to:
- genuine holistic case management and coordination with other relevant
services for men and their children. This included, importantly, assistance in
obtaining legal advice and legal aid; (where was it stated that you were required to provide legal advice, your funding was for accommadation for homeless men and children)
- information services for men about relevant issues and services; (where was it stated that you were required to provide information services, your funding was for accommadation for homeless men and children and information on what?)
- advice to supplement and temper that coming from sources such as the now
officially established Office of Women, and from some groups associated with
Partnerships Against Violence, and (where was it stated that you were to provide advice, your funding was for accommadation for homeless men and children)
- peak body consultation with the community about relevant issues. (where was it stated that you were required to provide peak body consulation and to whom?)

In late 2001, the former ACT Department of Education and Community Services
(DECS) decided, following continuing lobbying by certain opposition groups, to put
MAACS out to tender. (as is required by law and also to provide a fair and TRANSPARENT method of funding. And it was put out to tender because when they evaluated the "service" you were providing they found huge problems and terminated your funding.))
For the proper administration ofthe contract with the service provider, it was, in the
LFA’s view, incumbent on the funding authority to act in accordance with the
considerations that: (The government decided to do the right thing and look into your crony relationship with Stefaniak and as a result you lost your position, you don't have any rights then).
- the contract between the service provider and the funding authority
specifically provided that any declared dispute between the parties should be
subject to a mediation process; and (when you lied to the Evaluation tema you lost all rights.)
- there was a requirement to comply with relevant policy guidelines in
formulating the decision to put the service out to tender, a requirement to
carefully consider the criticisms made by the LFA of what was, in this
particular case, considered by the LFAA to be an extremely. faulty
“evaluation”, and a requirement, under Government guidelines, in assessing
tenders to check referee reports back with the referees themselves. (Bottom line is you lied and got caught out.)
It was also, in the LFA’s view, necessary for the proper administration ofthe contract
that the funding authority avoid:
- recording, maintaining, and/or utiising incorrect and prejudicial information
about MAACS’ operations which MAACS had no effective chance to correct
or rebut;
- asserting a requirement under law to do things that were not in fact legally
required ( e.g., to put the MAACS service out to tender), and/or impeding the
LFA’s legitimate political role, by the letting of the tender at a time which
would preclude action by the LFA (e.g., the day before the ACT election); being unduly influenced, in drawing up tender Terms of Reference for the
tender and in making assessments, by the opinions of any other agencies
which may have been opposed to the establishment of MAACS in the first
place, and/or by arranging, for example, for Departmental officers in receipt of
incorrect and prejudicial information, to sit on the tender evaluation panel.
Unfortunately, the above stipulations were, in the LFA’s view, not met.
As to the reasons for why they were not, it not our place to speculate. However, in
the LFA’s opinion, the tender process for MAACS’ successor service was
fundamentally flawed.
The LFA was primarily responsible for the policy initiative leading to the
establishment of MAACS. (Get over yourself. You had an idea to rip off the government, stop patting yourself on the back.) Its successor service played no role in those
developments, apart from some of their leading members actively seeking to block
them. (yeah but at least they were honest.) To replace the initiator ofthe project with the opponent of the project, and a
different ethos, should have required very strong supporting reasons - which were not
available. (you lied and you created a shoddy service that self supportd your own outdated ideals...get over it.)
This, in our opinion, tended to undermine public confidence in the allocation and
distribution of public funds in the welfare and support sector in the ACT, and
damaged the overall ability of the community sector in the ACT to provide this
necessary, unique, and very valuable service to a seriously disadvantaged section of
the community. (No it's people like you who spend a whole lifetime sponging off the tax payers in this country that undermine public confidence.)
MAACS was able, in a high proportion ofcases, to help families not only to deal with
their family crises but also to reconcile in a way that was safe for all the family
members. (What are you implying here...who was safe? The women because you had the men in your government sponsored house of hate? The children , if there were in fact any, certainly weren't safe were they?)
MAACS’s clients were overwhelmingly positive about the service they
received while at MAACS (see attachment). (Do you mean Emily the 10 year old that supposedly wrote the same letter as other people in exactly the same words that you tendered as evidence of your success?)
The LFA believes that, in the interests of fathers and their children in potential marriage breakdown situations, services of this kind should being strongly encouraged, not only in the ACT but in other locations around Australia, but should not be run by self-proclaimed “feminists” or their close associates. (You think they should be run by misogynists like you so you can get paid to sit on your ass all day and whine about women with newly separated men?)

The failure to establish such services would be yet another example of failure to deal
with the many cases where separated families could, with better policies and
administration, have been reconciled, in the interests of both the children and the
other members of the family. (The failure to establish such services means that the government is not going to be taken in by leeches like yourself who mooch off other peoples unfortunate situations and hide behind a faux concern for children.)

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=5&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aph.gov.au%2Fhouse%2Fcommittee%2Ffca%2Fchildcustody%2Fsubs%2Fsub1051.pdf&ei=07FBSvnODILksQPH8eX6CA&usg=AFQjCNErxuk4N8FUNWz1TZqirPUXffokoQ&sig2=3LFmS4t7w9Cm-AJsW2-eUg