We are all Brown-Shirted Pavlovian Barking Dogs Now ***

Dec 7 2006

Following my rush overview of what happened at Council today, I've had time to sit down with my notes and get really grumpy.

Perhaps some of 'the six' really think they're staving off a dreaded amalgamation with Maroochy by reducing the number of Councillors in Caloundra City but I doubt it. There's a none-too-subtle subtext here of forming a cozy corporate structure with a good strong leader who knows what's best for us.

It would be wonderful if we could refer to a transcript of today's meeting but these things aren't available. As Council minutes include none of the debate that occurs (simply how a motion is voted on) I will have to do my best to synopsize the 'arguments for and against today.

Let's start with the easy one. Cr Smith spoke first and was kind enough to have copies of a handout available. In it he says (read carefully and slowly and you may be able to follow it):

" The motion proposed to reduce the number of Councillors in Caloundra City is a proactive step to attempt to help finalise one of the steps being proposed in that report (The Size Shape and Sustainability Study) about whether we are in need of reducing Councillor numbers and redefining the boundaries within Caloundra City" .

OK, let me get this right - there's a Size, Shape and Sustainability study underway which may or may not suggest fewer Councilors. So to be proactive, let's vote for fewer Councillors now and that will somehow help to 'finalise the report'. Which may not actually be needed if you've already reduced the number of Councillors...my head is starting to seriously ache here.

Cr Winkler had an odder approach to the issue. She accused unnamed Councillors of being remiss in not having undertaken community consultation on the issue because 'Everyone's known about it for years.' She made vague references to greater transparency and democratic process but didn't actually explain how fewer Councillors would bring this about. In a private phone call, she suggested that the money saved on salaries could be used to set up offices in the divisions and thus 'bring the Council to the people' rather than the other way around.

Cr Dwyer was more direct in his reasoning.

"Reducing the number of Councillors would will mean that Councillors will not have to attend to the smaller issues, the barking dogs. All those small things that bog people down on a day- to-day basis. The new format will mean that Councillors will look after their statutory obligations first and their divisions second."

Don't know that I'd like to be a constituent being looked after 'second' - even if I was a barking dog.

Once again, the 'corporate' analogy came up.

"Council will be more like a board - focused not on the details but the overall governance. The Hinterland will have two Councillors..."

I will stop here and ask a simple question - how does Cr Dwyer know the hinterland will have two Councillors?? If he and the other five have privileged information on the make-up of this new, smaller council, surely this was the time to show it to us all.

Cr Cristaudo tried to link this radical overhaul with the normal electoral adjustments that occur every four years:

"This would be a duplication in community consultation. We do an electoral study every four years and we don't have community consultation on that.."

Cr Cristaudo is also, it seems, on a mission to stamp out parochialism:

"...this will get rid of parochialism -  which us alive and well I can tell you."

She had a bit to say about how many discussion forums Councillors attended but for the life of me I couldn't see what that had to do with the argument.

Accusations (direct and indirect) about Councillors not attending the forums came up time and again. In the end, I couldn't help but wonder if the six (all good forum attendees) weren't trying to punish those Councillors who don't find the forums that valuable. Just my thought.

Mayor Aldous took yet another approach - put them to sleep and they'll vote for it. He read a long and very boring section of the Size, Shape and Sustainability Study, perhaps hoping that somewhere in the words there'd be the threat of amalgamation. There wasn't, but he kept on reading.

To give him his due, he was the only speaker to give us some hint as to the advantages to be had:

"We'll save money on salaries, the priority projects and discretionary funding. The changes will stop amalgamation."

And he was also honest about the lack of community consultation:

"There'll be no consultation now as CCC would have to pay and this would be a duplication of expenditure. This way, State will pay for the consultation."

And indeed, once State government have formal notification of the reduction, they may undertake consultation with the community. But the chances of this consultation changing the reduction are - hey, lay me odds!

There may be a map and a 'plan' about this reduction known only to a select group but there were a few vital details that didn't seem to be known to the CEO.

When asked by Cr Newman whether the new format would mean first past the post voting, the CEO agreed it might. When asked if voters would have one vote or two for their two Councillors:

"I don't know."

Hold the script for a minute here while I get a little angry ---

The new format will give us two Councillors but we may only have one vote???

My headache has become a migraine.

More tomorrow.

The headline - having been called "a bunch of of brownshirts' by Max Whitton, who also suggested that we'd engage in 'pavlovian dog' behaviour, it was good to see Cr Dwyer take up the theme by suggesting the new format would shelter Councillors from 'barking dogs', Pavlovian or not.

Sammy

TOP