Dear councillors.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Please explain. Desist from merely casting aspersions. We are angry
On Friday nights when we meet in town for dinner as a group of friends we rarely discuss politics; we have very different opinions which are respected and continued friendships are paramount!
Last Friday (January 31) was different. Within five minutes there were unanimous expressions of disbelief and disgust for the scenes currently being played out in our council. We were unanimously angry.
One disaster after another for our region; catastrophic drought, wild-fires and now our council on the verge of successfully taking the region forward, is in the process of being compromised and ripped apart.
READ MORE:
From my perspective:
Margaret O'Connor, self-confessed architect of the disruption and the destruction left in its wake, has much to answer for. So do the flip-flopping councillors who allow her to wreak havoc.
- "None of us have anything different from what Margaret O'Connor has to say really". (Cr O'Brien just going with the flow).
- "He (mayor) doesn't know a lot about the people of Armidale". "He comes from the Aberfoyle-Wongwibinda area". (Cr Galletly presumably unaware that we comprise more than just people residing within the town boundary)
- "I am struggling to understand the logic behind it all". (Cr Gray illogically supporting 'it')
- "I feel like I am a man in the middle" (Cr Murat presumably not knowing which way to flop or flip).
- "We didn't want a public meeting, but it was the only option" (Cr Robinson apparently unable to envisage any other options)
- "I made a mistake in voting for the Mayor" (Cr Bailey flip flopping again).
- "We want a new leader, simple as that" (Cr O'Connor being Cr O'Connor as usual)
Such comments suggest our rudderless councillors possess few of the skills or acumen required to take our region forward and are easily influenced by those with "self interest" agendas. If this is not the case, if you want to retain some vestige of credibility, now having dragged disunity into the public arena, the public demands an explanation for your course of action. An explanation based on factual evidence, not simply vague inferences or personal grievances.
Margaret O'Connor has a lingering history as a councillor and a not very impressive record. Not much to keep her in the public eye. Personal votes would not have got her over the line in the last council elections. She owes her seat to her first position on a group ticket comprised of candidates with very little chance of being elected in their own right. Common practice but telling never the less.
Many voters in the Armidale region do not know how many councillors we actually have, let alone be able to put a name to them. Few actually become engaged in council elections but are legally compelled to vote. Familiarity with a name provides the best chance of that name being selected for preference on a voting card.
Familiarity is achieved by having the name remain in the public eye as much as possible. The more controversial the issue behind a name, the more media attention it will attract. Margaret O'Conner understands this well. The next council elections are in eight months time. The ensuing inferences are damning.
The majority of our councillors are city dwellers. There are strong signs emanating from within council, of resentment towards people from outside of the town occupying top council positions ("The deputy mayor is getting too much media attention").
These 'outsiders' are making successful and progressive changes to ingrained council culture; culture that has held the region back for so long but afforded self-serving councillors a powerful voice. Regressive councillors imbued with a sense of entitlement and self-importance have met their match, had their wings clipped and they don't like it.
Their response:
- Take grievances to a wider public audience despite knowing full well they should be resolved in council chambers
- Propose a motion to depose the Mayor knowing full well a resolution in favour of the motion achieves nothing.
So why do it? The only logical conclusion is that the real aim is to create a dysfunctional council and a divided community. It is obviously working. It suggests less about immature councillors who should grow up and more about insidious strategies to pursue self-serving agendas.
As a community we ignore insidious behaviour at our own peril, so, councillors please explain.
