This is possibly the most troubling item I’ve read in the Examiner for some time. Here we have a Councillor who stood for his spot on the Council “to work for the ratepayers” and when he sees that something needs fixing his fellow Councillors virtually slap him down.
A witness in the gallery when the motion was being discussed reports that almost to a person the Councillors were saying they couldn’t support the motion mainly because they couldn’t give Council any more time and that they supported things the way they are. Patronising!
If Cr Spencer was seeing the world another way, and had taken the initiative to move for change, you do have to wonder what he is seeing and how serious it might be.
This is the process that oversees the ways ratepayer’s money is spent after all. It is a process that should be above reproach and now there must be questions.
Cr Spencer believed the councillors around the table had enough knowledge to complete the tenders process and the review of expenditure is their job. It's one of the things for which they receive a stipend.
It is not like they are volunteers and Cr. Gibson’s “audit” must be at arm’s-length and independent, otherwise uncomfortable questions are likely to float to the surface.
As for Cr Dawkins asserting disbanding the committee was "dangerous" and for the reasons she is reported as proffering, well it beggars belief.
And Cr. Finlay’s confidence is as likely as not as misplaced as it might be well placed. No room for change here!
Launceston’s ratepayers have not been well served by its Councillors in open debate 'around the table’ on what seems to have been a contentious issue. If wasn't, it is bound to be.
This may well be why they do it so rarely in the clear light of day. Apparently Council meeting can be as short as 17 mins with all the debate and decision making going on in ‘workshops’ a week earlier.
Let us see what Cr Gibson’s “audit” exposes, to whom, by whom and when.
Ray Norman
A move to disband the City of Launceston council's tender review committee by one of its councillors has been lost.
The motion, put forward by Councillor Paul Spencer, was lost after he was the only person to vote for it at Thursday's council meeting.
However, deputy mayor Danny Gibson moved an alternate motion for an audit of the committee that passed unanimously. It is understood there was a review of the committee scheduled for the end of last year.
Councillor Tim Walker seconded the original motion for the purposes of having the discussion.
The original motion asked for all tenders more than $10,000 to be brought to the council for a decision, rather than the panel.
Councillor Jim Cox, who chairs the tender committee, said the committee was the third step in the tender process after the council calls for project tenders and tenders submitted, then it goes before a panel of council officers.
Cr Spencer believed the councillors around the table had enough knowledge to complete the tenders.
Councillor Andrea Dawkins said disbanding the committee based on the experience around the table was "dangerous" because not all the councillors would be the council in the future.
Councillors Hugh McKenzie and Cr Gibson, who have both sat on the committee previously, said they had seen continued improvement in how the process works. Councillor Janie Finlay said she also had confidence in the current tender process.
Councillor Nick Daking and Cr Spencer also sit on the committee.
All councillors spoke about the item, except Councillor Karina Stojansek. Councillor Rob Soward was not at the meeting
No comments:
Post a Comment