No suprises - 'grab for power' passes

Feb 26 2007

I am just back from the first half of the special Council meeting to vote on the reduction in Councilor numbers. I don't know how the vote will go this afternoon but, barring something dramatic, the five Councilors who originally joined Aldous in this corporatisation of our elected body will get there way and Caloundra City will have 3 divisions and six Councilors (I will update this evening when the vote is actually complete).

We had been told that this was a 'done deal' but I still (naively) hoped for some common sense or a sudden injection of morality in those who have backed the downsizing of Council. No such luck.

The results of community consultation were released to the public just moments before the meeting began.

In a nutshell:

Over 70% of respondents opted for no change.

Option 3 - six single member divisions came second and

Option 6 - 3 divisions and 6 Councilors came third.

Here's how the Councilors line up:

FOR maintaining the status quo

Cr Newman, Grosskreutz, Wallace, O'Keareney and Champion

FOR a reduction

Crs Singh, Smith, Dwyer, Cristaudo and Winkler - and the Mayor.

And the debate began

You could be forgiven for thinking - 70% - how can you argue against that?

Quite easily, as it turned out. Below are highlights from the arguments given.

Cr Dwyer - he had a problem that only respondents got a voice in the process.  Please don't ask me to explain the logic in that.

Dwyer then went on for quite some time about how few people had responded and (implied) that decisions couldn't be made on the basis of this really really small number. The consultant who ran the process stated that the number of respondents was quite high for this sort of thing and he could reasonably assume that it reflected the wishes of the broader community.

Dwyer tried to counter this by stating that 'all' of the people he had spoken to wanted change.

Perhaps we should rely on Dwyer's anecdotal evidence in future and simply skip broader consultation.

He then did his best to explain that the consultation was flawed and that people weren't fully informed. I found this rich from a Councillor who had voted to reduce numbers without any consultation but we'll let that one pass.

Dwyer then went on to make the amazing statement that he 'only voted for the motion in order to have a debate'. That's a bit like saying you voted for the war just so people would talk about it.

Dwyer has done a course in management and has what seems a major bee in his bonnet about Council 'behaving more like a company'. He used the word 'governance' a lot. I wonder which company he would like to emulate - NIB? NAB? AWB?

Dwyer focused very heavily on financial accountability getting the budget right (as though somehow 6 Councilors will do this better than 10). Dick Newman in turn suggested that there was a very easy way for the Council to balance their budget - 'Stop spending on big ticket items.'

For reasons known best to himself, Dwyer tried to link the idea that 'the consultation was flawed' with the argument that it should have been undertaken by State government . It would have saved Caloundra a lot of money, I guess.

He rounded out his argument with the statement that 'this (the consultation) is a minority report'.

Cr Smith rose next and spoke about how complicated the process was. At least I think that was his point. It had something to do with 'the process being flawed', I guess because it was so complicated.

Smith was also 'morally unable to accept' the 'red form' that was sent to everyone in Caloundra by Crs Newman, O'Kearney, Champion, Wallace and Grosskreutz. He didn't spell out how this affected his stance but he was pretty grumpy about it.

He dragged up the bogeyman of amalgamation and said he'd written a letter to the Minister, who 'would be pretty impressed.' He ended by saying it was all very complicated.

Grosskreutz was short and sweet - 'It's a grab for power' She said more but that was the money quote.

Grosskreutz also read out an email from State Member for Glasshouse, Carolyn Male, which expressed concern at the reduction and asked Councilors to think about it carefully (full text of that to come).

Cr Smith rose to ask Cr Grosskreutz if the Member would give an undertaking not to influence the Electoral Commission process. I'm not sure why this question was not ruled out of order but it wasn't. Grosskreutz, wisely, suggested Smith ask the Member directly.

At this stage, Dwyer asked Grosskreutz a question, interrupted her and then accused of her of not answering. He asked a further question, interrupted and again accused her of not answering. Grosskreutz' appeal to the chair to bring him into order were met with a wave of the hand.

Cr Singh ('I'll make up my mind when we vote on it...') stated 'it was a tough decision' and that, sadly, he couldn't always make decisions based on what the community wanted. He suggested that they had to 'look further than just the consultation' for guidance on which way to go but didn't quite spell out where he was looking for guidance.

Cr Winkler bemoaned all the mudsling and untruths that had been bandied about. She also said that her constituents had never brought up the issue of Councilor reduction with her so....(I don't know what that line of argument was all about.) She maintained that the issue was now so clouded that nobody knew what they wanted anymore (hello, Cr Winlker - 70% of respondents?)

Cr Cristaudo maintained that the 'red form' compromised the integrity of the consultation  and 'there were certainly untruths in this document'. She didn't actually say which bits were untruthful. She was most upset about the cost of the consultation and brushed away the overwhelming result by saying 'People don't like change.'

Cr Champion asked that the Councilors come up with a better alternative to 3 divisions. It seems, having given up on the status quo winning the day,  he was hoping for a motion setting out 8 Councilors.

As I write this, the debate goes on.

Will send out an update tonight.

Sammy