Councillors and senior staff should be thanking the so-called 'noisy minority' of Bridgetown for giving them an issue (Zinnecker's House) to deal with.
Otherwise, they would have trouble justifying their existence.
October's Council meeting ran for a full half-hour, including questions from the public and dealt mainly with renaming some roads and a meaningless submission on the State's new draft forest management plan. They simply dismissed a petition signed by hundreds of local residents, which urged them to retain Zinnecker's, without even discussing it.
If you consider the councillors are paid roughly $350 for each meeting they attend, that is a good hourly rate! And you can't tell me there is a lot of preparation involved in simply accepting all but one of the officer recommendations without debate.
After half an hour of raising their hands to vote in unison, the councillors (and staff) must have been famished. Just as well there was a lavish ratepayer-funded meal and alcoholic drinks awaiting them when it was finally over.
Having worked in Local Government for about 13 years (City of South Perth), I have had a close up view as to what goes on. Councillors, on the whole, are involved in local government because they have a vested interest in local business or have political aspirations beyond local government. There are a few exceptions, but only a few. Although I have only been in Bridgetown for about 5 years, it seems to me that there are many dark shapes lurking in the murky waters of our Council. Ultimately there are only two courses of action to clear the waters. Get rid of the existing councillors by removing them from office or have the council investigated and sacked. This is what happed at the City if South Perth.
ReplyDelete