Dear Councillors, Council Meeting 11 April 2017 It is appreciated that you have lots of issues to deal with in your roles as Councillors as was mentioned several times this morning – all the more reason for your not wanting to waste time on incomplete or incorrect information. Today I noted similar unsatisfactory scenarios in three matters dealt with before leaving the Chamber at 11.45am. To me, these three matters were based on incomplete or incorrect information and should not have been permitted to proceed.I understand there is an option for you to submit a notice of rescission by tomorrow, so it’s not all done and dusted unless that’s what you want. Response to Citizens’ Jury It was obvious from comments and questions by you that there is some disagreement about what was supposed to be your response to the Citizens’ Jury and the impression given was that you were pushed to have it dealt with on the day due to its importance as part of the development of the Delivery Program 2017-21 and relevant timing issues. Not good enough, councillors! Ratepayers have contributed over $200,000 to the costs of the Citizens’ Jury process and would rightly expect that you deal with it with the respect it deserves. If it, at this late stage – and you have had the Jury’s report since December - proper deliberation will affect the next batch of paperwork, so be it! THPA Fees for Kyla Hall It was obvious in this matter that incomplete information had been given to you on this matter and that conflicting advice was delivered during public forum by the two people making submissions. Rather than hand-balling that report back for completion and correction – and there were no time constraints with this issue as there appeared to be in the CJ matter – councillors, you went right ahead and took a vote. One of you claimed that the continuation of the concession for the THPA would invite similar requests from across the shire but did any of you twig to ask how many had done so in the past four years? In any case, were not sufficient grounds given by the two speakers to have reasonably deflected any such future requests? Councillors, you ought to be concerned about achieving exemplary “quadruple bottom line” results but you have blotted your copybook today by turning your back on the cultural significance of the history behind the THPA’s involvement with the halls in Tuross Head. Dog Park Again, it was obvious that the information given to you was not up-to-date on a couple of points and considering the agenda items are prepared in advance that is understandable – it should be expected though that any such later developments are made known to you before the meeting and this was not apparent. Changing the status of a few areas from no dogs to on-leash or off leash isn’t what is behind this matter …………. and that should have been clear to you from its being raised initially back in December. Do any of you know what is envisaged for the Dog Park in the Bay area? Forgive the question if that information has been provided in your briefings but it certainly isn’t out there publicly despite some sketches on an overhead photo that some of you might have seen in an on-line publication. Please, I’m not trying to be smart, just letting you know of my feelings that you have failed in handling these issues today but it’s not the end of the world, is it, ……….and maybe I’m just one voice. Over to you, Elected Representatives! Jeff de Jager Coila
