Letter by Dr Bittar, Gabriel, published in The Islander, 2011.01.27
in response to the Editorial of 2011.01.20.
Dear Editor,
I read with interest your editorial (The Islander 20/1/11), wherein you estimate that new councillors should be more trusting of council administration and are wasting council resources by asking too many questions in written format. I hope your editorial will be the start of a necessary and healthy debate on this fundamental issue of democracy at work. I happen to disagree with you both on the general and the details.
It is desirable, as a rule, that elected representatives question the workings of the administration. It is part of their job, otherwise waste and worse may build up in the administration, however small it may be.
Moreover, when strong disagreements build up about the manner in which an administration has been operating, it is desirable for the new majority to question strongly and inquisitively the modus operandi. Five new councillors have been elected in the context of much discontent within segments of the population. The constituency of these new councillors expects them to act to improve the situation.
Councillors have only three venues open to them. First, they may ask written questions. I was perplexed about your notion that oral questions would do. Oral answers don’t amount to much unless there is a perfect ongoing mode of operation, and if one can always expect sincere and clear answers.
The second action consists in voting resolutions, which bind the administration into acting. For example, a majority of councillors have resolved last Wednesday to request an independent specialist to review council plans to create another CWMS sewerage system in Penneshaw, akin to the one implemented in American River. I can witness that a lot of rare money has been wasted on the latter, and more will be wasted in operation. “Errare humanum est“… but to persist in error and repeat the whole misled process on a second town would be “diabolicum“.
You turn into derision one of the 11 questions put by Councillor Walkom about this sewerage scheme, with the notion that asking council what has been learned from the CWMS implementation in American River is some sort of too general and thus ridiculous question. I strongly disagree. If the administration considers there’s nothing to be learned on this matter, then thank goodness for councillors to question this incredible self-indulgence on its part.
Finally, councillors have the right to terminate the CEO’s position.
Dr Gabriel Bittar
American River
Not just a problem on Kangaroo Island. I think “Staff” believe they are running Council and one must not challenge their reports put before Council.
I am not a Councillor but have been fighting Wakefield Regional Council for a long period of time over the Port Wakefield CWMS. At the Council meeting in September Council moved a motion that I stop writing to a particular Councillor (he said he was fed up of getting letters) to try and get answers and that I must write to the CEO and send a copy to the Councillor if I like.
In the October meeting Council passed a motion that they will not reply to any more correspondence re the Port Wakefield CWMS. It would be accepted and noted only.
If Council Staff were not vague in their answers and were open and transparent I wouldn’t have written numerous letters.
Council engaged a consultant re the CWMS and in June presented to Council his report. It was very clear from his report that the Council and the Superintendent (who was removed for not doing his job properly and representing the engineers) did not keep records as required, plans that were presented to the Community did not comply with the requirements of the contract. He also made a recommendation that Council should explore the variation payments, over $2 million that should have been borne by the contractor as part of his requirments of the tender/contract conditions. The Acting CEO said there was no reason to do so.
To those Councillors who can see the tree through the leaves, don’t give up. You have not done anything wrong by challenging what has been put before you at Council meetings.