"This is the wording of the email the Acting City General Manager sent to our elected aldermen last week. "A robust debate in council that does not result in the required absolute majority will significantly damage relations and our reputation, especially when the university has been organising speakers to attend the meeting supporting the proposal."
- How serious is this matter of a city official trying to influence the direction of debate?
- How serious is it that he warns our elected representatives against carrying out 'robust debate'?
- How serious is it that he, or anyone else involved behind the scenes, is trying to influence the democratic process by trying to block proper debate?
- Why was he warning about debate and not getting 'the required absolute majority' result?
- And how serious is it that his main worry is "especially when the university has been organising speakers to attend the meeting" to support the proposal (the agenda item to give away 5 parcels of ratepayers' land for free).
Has the Council given away more than 5 parcels of land through its cosy association with some sections of the university? It appears to have given away a basic democratic right, the right of elected representatives to freely debate an issue in public without threats or warnings.
Perhaps the ratepayers and residents of Launceston can be thankful to Alderman Gibson for blowing the whistle on such actions. (Whistle blowers are protected by legislation, so it is hoped that Ald, Gibson has not been bullied by anybody in the Council since he blew the whistle.)
Is the seriousness of the content of the email and the nature of the cosy relationship between Council and sections of UTas cause for public concern?"
Should we expect any other response this far along the process that seems to have been a done deal from the outset? We have elected councillors to represent us but they don't consult us. To attend a council meeting is not informative because so many decisions are made behind closed doors.
ReplyDelete