COUNCILLORS DISAGREED ON SIX PER CENT OF MATTERS
Most voters, if they think about it, will already have made up their mind on how they will vote at the December referendum to reduce the number of councillors.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
However factually, how much difference will a reduction mean to the diversity of views held by councillors when making a decision, or will it mean that the chance of making a wrong decision will be increased?
Well, let's review the last six months of council meetings. 94 per cent of decisions were made unanimously. Unanimously in this context means every councillors present at the time of the decision. That's right in only six per cent of the time was there any difference in what all the councillors considered should happen.
And that doesn't change whether there is nine, 10, 11, 12 councillors or less present to make the decision.
At the 13th April meeting there were 11 councillors present. The vote on only one issue was other than unanimous. The vote on whether to 'lay the motion on the table' regarding the BMX track was split six votes to five.
On the 27th April there were 10 councillors present. The vote on only one issue was other than unanimous. The vote on whether to continue an annual grant to a community group during closed was divided eight votes to two.
On the 11th May there was nine councillors present. They agreed unanimously on everything.
On the 25th May, there were 10 councillors present. The agreed unanimously on everything.
On the 8th June, there were eight councillors present. They disagreed on only one question. That was whether to commit to building a new art gallery, that succeeded six votes to two.
On the 22nd June, there were seven councillors present. They agreed on everything
On the 13th July, there were 11 councillors present. The disagreed on only one issue. One councillor was against allowing a frost fan at a local farm.
On the 27th July, there were 11 councillors present. They disagreed on only one issue. One councillor was against an amendment to the cemetery plan
On the 10th August, all councillors were present. The disagreed on only one issue. One councillor didn't agree on the colour scheme of the west end stadium.
On the 24th August, all councillors were present. They disagreed on four occasions about matters surrounding the "Rose Garden".
On the 14th September all councillors were present again. The disagreed again in respect to a decision surrounding the "Rose Garden".
On the 28th December, all councillors were present. They disagreed on three matters. The first on who would be the deputy mayor for the next three months. The second and third on whether to have a referendum regarding their numbers in December.
Bill Lancaster, Griffith
NO SURPRISE AT DEPARTURE
The demise of the NSW premier comes without disbelief for some.
Why is it that some were able to foresee the work of the former Member for Wagga and his mates, while many became entrapped in his web of half truths?
The "gang of four" (as they were known in some circles) in the NSW Parliament is now the "gang of one", with the first three all falling for corruption-related activity.
The continuation of Operation Keppel at ICAC on October 18 will no doubt provide more insight into the dark side of Australian politics.
Corruption doesn't take a holiday and neither should the watchdog's work into intentional and deliberate activities as determined by the ICAC Act 1988.
Andrew Negline, Jones Creek
WANT TO HAVE YOUR SAY?
Email your letter to the editor to letters@areanews.com.au or post it to PO Box 1004, Griffith, NSW 2680. All letters will need a number (for publication) and a contact phone number (not for publication). Or use the form below...