OSEA likes gag clauses and controlled input for Advisory Panel

gagged_free-speechUnlike the microFIT Program Advisory Panel, Terms of Reference, September 2010, the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association (OSEA) wants to include a vast number of members that still excludes the Ministry of Health, and any public anti-wind organization, in both the FIT Advisory Panel and the “Community Energy Advisory Panel” – the latter panel the ones to review a so called “Community Energy Plan” as announced by the Liberals. Note also that the developers, through this organization, would be at every panel level of the program.

Read the June 7th, 2013 letter here:
OSEA recommendations to Minister of Energy on Small FIT process
Interesting to note are the last paragraphs in the power authority memo and the OSEA recommendations for gagging everyone: “All members of the Advisory Panel and their designated alternates must keep the proceedings of the panel in strict confidence and will be required to sign a non-disclosure agreement. Any violation of the non-disclosure agreement would be treated as a serious matter and would, at a minimum, result in immediate dismissal from the Advisory Panel.”

14 thoughts on “OSEA likes gag clauses and controlled input for Advisory Panel

  1. Any dealings with the Wind Industry are useless…they are so corrupt and jaded, that they could not possibly do anything above board. Their ONLY concern, is how to shove these down our throats, without having them come right back up again…LOL

  2. So, their input is welcome, but no critics allowed?? Sounds a little biased…surprised????

  3. speaking of gag orders, now is a good time to be a good neighbour to all people hosting turbines….. contact and suggest they have their gagged contracts reviewed……..in light of changes since signed allowing outs before being sued, property tax increases now allowed,liability insurance problems etc……..lawyer, eric gillespie would love to hear from/help any with changed minds,new worries or were misled to perils and heartache some coming forward with in spite of gag and puke orders……..make these old neighbours a friend again…..we can win one turbine at a time……till ontario wakes up…..

  4. I believe that the modern euphemism for this tactic is ‘controlling the message’ — a form of social engineering where only the desired viewpoint is allowed to be expressed. That provides the illusion of consensus in our pseudo-democracy (in a democracy, people are allowed to say no). In effect the government has suspended the rule of law to allow these projects to go forward without either economic or social justification — a ‘war measures’ act, if you will. Classic 19th century colonial exploitation lacking only the pith helmets (and so far, the troops). The gag orders and controlled inputs are merely the symptoms of a deeply wrong process that might collapse or trigger a less orderly response from the citizenry if it were exposed to public view. Clearly some folks are very afraid of the truth (whatever it is) in comming out.

    • Here is one site on particular with a good explanation…

      In group settings, the Delphi Technique is an unethical method of achieving consensus on controversial topics. It requires well-trained professionals, known as “facilitators” or “change agents,” who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against another to make a preordained viewpoint appear “sensible,” while making opposing views appear ridiculous.

      In her book Educating for the New World Order, author and educator Beverly Eakman makes numerous references to the need of those in power to preserve the illusion that there is “community participation in decision-making processes, while in fact lay citizens are being squeezed out.”

      The setting or type of group is immaterial for the success of the technique. The point is that when people are in groups that tend to share a particular knowledge base, they display certain identifiable characteristics, known as group dynamics, which allows the facilitator to apply the basic strategy.

      The facilitators or change agents encourage each person in a group to express concerns about the programs, projects, or policies in question. They listen attentively, elicit input from group members, form “task forces,” urge participants to make lists, and in going through these motions, learn about each member of a group. They are trained to identify the “leaders,” the “loud mouths,” the “weak or non-committal members,” and those who are apt to change sides frequently during an argument.


    • From the link…

      How to Diffuse the Delphi Technique

      Three steps can diffuse the Delphi Technique as facilitators attempt to steer a meeting in a specific direction.

      Always be charming, courteous, and pleasant. Smile. Moderate your voice so as not to come across as belligerent or aggressive.
      Stay focused. If possible, jot down your thoughts or questions. When facilitators are asked questions they don’t want to answer, they often digress from the issue that was raised and try instead to put the questioner on the defensive. Do not fall for this tactic. Courteously bring the facilitator back to your original question. If he rephrases it so that it becomes an accusatory statement (a popular tactic), simply say, “That is not what I asked. What I asked was . . .” and repeat your question.
      Be persistent. If putting you on the defensive doesn’t work, facilitators often resort to long monologues that drag on for several minutes. During that time, the group usually forgets the question that was asked, which is the intent. Let the facilitator finish. Then with polite persistence state: “But you didn’t answer my question. My question was . . .” and repeat your question.

      Never become angry under any circumstances. Anger directed at the facilitator will immediately make the facilitator the victim. This defeats the purpose. The goal of facilitators is to make the majority of the group members like them and to alienate anyone who might pose a threat to the realization of their agenda. People with firm, fixed beliefs, who are not afraid to stand up for what they believe in, are obvious threats. If a participant becomes a victim, the facilitator loses face and favor with the crowd. This is why crowds are broken up into groups of seven or eight, and why objections are written on paper rather than voiced aloud where they can be open to public discussion and debate. It’s called crowd control.

      At a meeting, have two or three people who know the Delphi Technique dispersed through the crowd so that, when the facilitator digresses from a question, they can stand up and politely say: “But you didn’t answer that lady/gentleman’s question.” Even if the facilitator suspects certain group members are working together, he will not want to alienate the crowd by making accusations. Occasionally, it takes only one incident of this type for the crowd to figure out what’s going on.

      Establish a plan of action before a meeting. Everyone on your team should know his part. Later, analyze what went right, what went wrong and why, and what needs to happen the next time. Never strategize during a meeting.

      A popular tactic of facilitators, if a session is meeting with resistance, is to call a recess. During the recess, the facilitator and his spotters (people who observe the crowd during the course of a meeting) watch the crowd to see who congregates where, especially those who have offered resistance. If the resistors congregate in one place, a spotter will gravitate to that group and join in the conversation, reporting what was said to the facilitator. When the meeting resumes, the facilitator will steer clear of the resistors. Do not congregate. Instead gravitate to where the facilitators or spotters are. Stay away from your team members.

      This strategy also works in a face-to-face, one-on-one meeting with anyone trained to use the Delphi Technique. Lynn Stuter is an education researcher in Washington state. This was originally published by Eagle Forum Here.

      You have been Delphi-ed — fight back!

  5. Hey Bob Chiarelli –
    your chance to ‘rise and shine’; and, what’s ideal for you?

    ‘[excerpt] OSEA Recommendations regarding FIT process and advisory panels
    [214,353 bytes]
    June 7, 2013 – Submitted to Honourable Bob Chiarelli, Minister of Energy’

    Chiarelli’s reaction?

    • Chiarelli’s – moral constitutional challenge;
      dropping his next bombshell

      But, what do you do – when you’ve been seduced?

      Answer: a free package pick-up
      (….of no benefit to Ontario citizens)

      http://www.powerauthority.on.ca/sites/default/files/MC-2013-1450-DirectionRenewableEnergyProgram.pdf (a free package pick-up)

      Marion Fraser, Fraser & Company

      Marion Fraser is considered one of the foremost practitioners of sustainable energy policy and programs in Ontario. With 28 years of experience in the energy sector, she pioneered demand side management programs at Ontario Hydro contributing to saving over 1200 MW of electricity from 1989 to 1993. She applied this experience to an active consulting practice until she was recruited to head Enbridge Gas Distribution’s demand side management efforts where she spearheaded programs saving customers $700 million over three years and delivering a shareholder incentive of $13 million under an innovative regulatory framework which she helped establish.

      When the McGuinty government was elected in 2003, although she had not been active politically, it hired Marion to ensure that sustainability was a key element in energy policy.

      Marion is a visionary leader who has had great success in building results oriented teams as well as innovative partnerships across multiple organizations engaging people in private and public sector organizations as well as non governmental agencies.


      Based on past trips!
      George Smitherman was smitten – a moral meeting of the minds.

      • Demand side management. A very old tactic often employed by dictators and imposed on their subjects. Rationing or controll of supply to make people obey a dictator.

  6. The IWT “converstion” is all directed to discussing the theory of wind energy and the theory of what IWTs can do. Promoters of IWTs will not talk about the realities of IWTs and these are two different things.
    All kinds of things are possible in theory but not in practice.
    The urban public is fed a steady diet about the theory of wind power and the theory of IWTs while rural Ontarians are made to deal with the realities of IWTs
    To let the promoters of IWTs continue on with endless discussions about theories is to allow them more time to get these IWTs installed in Ontario.
    What’s the point of the PCs having a “green” energy symposium? IWTs don’t work and they cause all kinds of harm period.
    Time to end all this foolish talk about IWTs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *