Five to four*

In government and in law, nine is a goodly number. It’s large enough to get a range of opinion and small enough so that decisions can be made. Since it’s an odd number, there only has to be a single canvassing. Either a motion is carried by simple majority or it fails.
The Kangaroo Island Council has nine councilors. A goodly number here too, one would imagine. But judging from the events of the past few months, nine is four too many. The Kangaroo Island Council should have five councilors – not nine. The four troublemakers “who have been campaigning for better fiscal management and transparency” (“Disappointing editorial”, The Islander 6 Oct. 2011: 2) should go. They are standing in the way of “progress.”
Voting to censure your colleague is a bit like drawing blood with a knife. You can do it all right, but should you? Whatever the outcome of a censure motion, it is bound to cause problems. Even in the event of an 8-to-1 vote, the person censured will feel persecuted and disparaged. After such an experience, it is doubtful whether the censured person will ever be able to work productively again. A 7-to-2 vote is better because at least the censured person has an ally. Depending on the circumstances, the two might serve as the conscience of the group. A 6-to-3 vote to censure does not bode well because three-out-of-nine already constitutes a bloc. The worst possible outcome of a censure motion, however, is a 5-to-4 vote. A 5-to-4 vote in favor of censure is a bloodbath.
While one would hope that the people maligned by a censure vote would forget the past and move on, they cannot. In the future, you can expect any bloc that has been polarized to continue to polarize. The only way forward is to address the underlying issues that created the division in the first place. Cr. Rosalie Chirgwin says that these include “alleged secret meetings, withholding of information to which councillors had a legal right, financial matters, right to freedom of speech and opinion, and the unconstitutionality of some regulations.” (“Island’s council at war,” The Islander 29 Sep. 2011: 2)
According to the lead article of The Islander of October 20, 2011, “Councillors have called in the State Ombudsman and the Local Government Minister to investigate allegations of illegality and the leaking of confidential information.” This is a positive step if it addresses the concerns of Cr. Chirgwin and the other councilors regarding fiscal management, procedure, and transparency.
Unfortunately, the same article takes issue with Cr. Chirgwin, Cr. Ken Liu, and Cr. Graham Walkom for spending $12,822 on legal costs “either separately or together for issues including bullying and harassment, meeting procedure, personal statements and code of conduct reports.”

Deputy Mayor Peter Clements went further: “How long can our ratepayers put up with council paying out money to please the errant behavior of those who do not want this island to progress?”
Cr. Clements and CEO Andrew Boardman seem to be implying that spending money on “frivolous” legal costs is a waste of money. Few would argue with that. But the simplest way to save the $11,646 spent on “bullying and harassment” is to stop bullying and harassment. Blaming the victims for the problem does not address the issue and is in itself another form of bullying. After a 5-to-4 censure vote, it is doubtful that such inflammatory rhetoric is going to mend fences.
Finally, there is the question of progress for KI. It would appear that there is a healthy difference of opinion of just what constitutes progress. Many would argue that progress for KI means carefully developing eco-tourism, the agricultural sector, and the service industries so that families can earn a living wage here and educate their children. They would say that the quality of life on KI and the fragile ecosystem are our most important possessions and that nothing should be done to compromise these things. Others would say that this is not going far enough – that KI needs more infrastructure and real estate development. There are even those who think that off shore oil and gas exploration should be allowed in the waters between Cape Borda and Port Lincoln. Saying that some people don’t want progress because they disagree with your notion of progress is the reason that there are nine councilors instead of five.

Charlie Canning
D’Estrees Bay, Kangaroo Island

*[Author’s note: The title “Five-to-four” refers to Cr. Joy Willson’s motion for “a vote of no confidence in Cr. Chirgwin which was passed five votes to four, with Crs. Chirgwin, Walkom, Liu and Boxall voting against” at the Kangaroo Island Council meeting in Penneshaw of September 2011. The Islander 29 Sep. 2011:2.]